Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2024

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Daytona 500 winners

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The Daytona 500 is one of the crown in the jewels of NASCAR. It has been held every year since 1959 and is known as The Great American Race. 43 drivers have won this prestigious race, including some of the all time greats in Richard Petty, Bobby Allison, Dale Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, David Pearson and Cale Yarborough. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The winner was the first race was" - typo in there
• "The 1973 oil crisis shortened by the event" - and here
• That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Both issues have been addressed EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to say on this one, EnthusiastWorld37. Overall, great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Have made changes based on the points below. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture could be wikilinked
• What makes ConceptCarz a reliable source? It's been around for a long time but I couldn't see much about its editorial oversight on the site.
• Isn't it "Guinness World Records" rather than "Guinness World Book of Records"?
• Encyclopædia Britannica and Guinness have no consensus at WP:RSP. The EB entry has been written by staff and the GWR info is straightforward, so I think their use here is fine.
• Is the Tucker and Tiller ref needed at the heding of the Winners of the Daytona 500 table? It only covers up to 1994.
• Other sources all look fine for the info cited.
• I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.

• Pass for source review. All looks good now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Shouldn't the wikilink at "American stock car race" exclude the "American" (i.e. be "American stock car race")?
• Looking at the source, isn't "the race has been extended through the use of overtime rules on several occasions" a bit of an understatement?
• "a large sum of money" - how about specifying the most recent amount available, rather than using this imprecise statment?

• Support: Meets the criteria in my opinion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• In the header of the first table, "Refs." is the abbreviation of "References".
• Richard Petty's image's caption should end with a full stop, given that it is a complete sentence.
• In the header of the "By team" table, and for the sake of consistency, it should read as "Team" instead of Teams.

That's what I saw, EnthusiastWorld37. Nice work. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Alavense: Have addressed your concerns EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what I meant, given that in the other tables it's Driver and Make. Please undo it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1971

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

With the list for 1969 having just been promoted and the list for 1970 having a few supports, here is the list for 1971. Lots more Carpenters and a first chart-topper for a singer who was born in England and raised in Australia but would be one of the U.S.'s favourite singers of the 1970s..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• "The chart, which in 1971 was entitled Easy Listening, has undergone various name changes and since 1996 has been published under the title Adult Contemporary." - I generally recommend commas before and after the "since 1996" but you may want to do the other workaround you use to fix the issue instead.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• "topped Billboard's pop singles chart" - Were non-singles still eligible to chart back then like they are now? If so, "songs" might be a better term than "singles" given the context
  • No, songs which were not available to purchase as a single were not eligible for the Hot 100 until December 1998 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• There are two instances of "followed into the top spot" so one could be something like "succeeded at the summit" or some other combination of words
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• "[7][8][9][10]" - Four refs in a row is usually considered WP:OVERKILL, it might help to move one earlier in the sentence or eliminate it
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff and pictures, as always expected and delivered by you.--NØ 13:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - thank you for your kind words, all the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, did the edit not save? Because I am not seeing the changes in the current revision...--NØ 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Like a dumb-ass I had it open in another tab but hadn't hit "save changes" LOL. Please check now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I figured as much, lol. Support and I can also pass the source review as I am familiar with the sourcing on these types of lists now. Tapestry should be italicized on ref 4, though. Cheers.--NØ 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I've got nothing, you stumped me! Great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Alavense

I read the list a couple of times and I didn't find anything to point out. If anything, I'd try to find another verb to avoid using "replace" twice in replacing "It's Impossible" by Perry Como. The song held the top spot for a single week before being replaced. In any case, I'm happy to support. Great work as always, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: - thanks for your review, I made a slight change to avoid that repetition, which I hadn't noticed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

1988–89 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This year's ranking list continued to use the complicated system from the preceding years, and Steve Davis was once again far ahead of the rest. Penalties relating to violence and drugs affected the former world champions Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn respectively. The Smith book, a key resource for this article, is available to consult at Internet Archive, but I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from any of the sources to reviewers. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Seasons are referred to inconsistently throughout. I can see both "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first" and "It was first time since the rankings were instituted in 1976/1977"
• "as part of a six month ban imposed by the WPBSA" => "as part of a six-month ban imposed by the WPBSA"
• "In May 1988, Cliff Thorburn had two ranking points" - no need to relink and restate his full name as he was just mentioned in the last paragraph
• "Stephen Hendry won the other two" => "Hendry won the other two"
• "If there wasstill a tie" (sic) appears repeatedly in the criteria listing
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article per the points above. Let me know "if there isstill" anything to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images properly sourced & licensed (AGF on self-published works)
• All images properly captioned (perhaps link Stephen Hendry again in the image caption?)
• All images have alt text
• All images relevant to the text

Support on images, nice work! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Staraction. I've linked Hendry, as suggested. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by EnthusiastWorld37

• Please state who Gavin Lightman was
• "In April 1988," - the year should be 1987 as per The Times source
• "had earlier been found guilty in court of headbutting the tournament director at the 1987 UK Championship," - I think that was the 1986 UK Championship not the 1987 UK Championship as per the source
• "Alain Robidoux received two walkovers at the 1988 World Snooker championship" - championship should start with a capital letter in this case
• "The tournaments contributing to the 1988–89 rankings were the ranking tournaments held across two seasons" - repetition of tournaments
• "the player who earned more "Merit" points 'was the most recent season was given the higher ranking." - in the most recent season
• "the player who earned more "Merit" points was the most preceding season was given the higher ranking" - in the most preceding season
• "the player with the better performance in the previous ranking tournament was given the higher ranking, going back through ranking tournaments until the positions could be established" - same issue as the fifth point

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Support – Note that I have a made a minor change to the list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• "Merit" points" and "A" points". Besides, why use a capital m for Merit?
• In the "Points tariff and basis of ranking" section, what's the reason for having "the" before some of the tournaments but not for others?
• In the first table, there's Losing semi-finalist but also Losing Quarter-finalist. I would make it lower case in both cases. Same for Last 16 Loser and Last 32 Loser.

That's what I saw, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Alavense. Hopefully I've addressed those points. Let me know if anyhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why there are three pairs of quotations marks both in "merit" points" and "A" points", BennyOnTheLoose. Is it just a typo? Alavense (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort of... I had missed it. Hopefully now OK. thanks, Alavense. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine now. Good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look fine, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

96th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2024 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Please note that this list has been greatly rewritten since the first unsuccessful nomination to format it similar to the other Oscar ceremony pages that were promoted to featured list status. Birdienest81talk 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Raj and Hamish have been incredible Oscars collaborators" - Hamish hasn't been mentioned in the body so clarify here who he is
• "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent where she interviewed nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosted" - "where" doesn't really work after the bit before so I suggest "Comedian and journalist Amelia Dimoldenberg served as a social media and red carpet correspondent, interviewing nominees at events including the Oscars nominees lunch and hosting"
• "In September 2020, the Academy announced that starting with the 96th awards, all films" => "In September 2020, the Academy announced that, starting with the 96th awards, all films"
• "which involves creative heads in an films production" => "which involves creative heads in a film's production"
• "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards will also be deemed" => "In addition, Academy FAQs stated that British films that have complied with the British Film Institute's inclusion and diversity standards would also be deemed"
• "Furthermore with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became" => "Furthermore, with its win for Best Picture, Oppenheimer became"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Done -- I have read your comments and have made the suggested changes as noted in your feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 3 – Needs a date
• Ref 31 – Add Associated Press as the agency

That's all I've got, good stuff. Ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Done -- I've made the corrections based on your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 08:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. I really struggled to critique anything, this is very well sourced. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

• Does Ref. 23 have a url or something that can be linked?

• Unfortunately, there is no URL or webpage that links to the description/rationale as to why said person is receiving the award. The description is currently based on the Oscars official ceremony program pamphlet of which copies were once sold at the Academy Museum Store's website (see here) but have been since sold out.

• Add an archive link for Ref. 22?

• Done: Added archive link

• Italicise "In Memoriam" (to this ==> In Memoriam) in the section heading and the first sentence ("The "In Memoriam" tribute, which featured....")? I'm not familiar with these lists, but that's how I've seen it displayed in the other FLs you've listed.

• Hmmm, I'm not very sure about this. According to Joeyconnick, non-English language words in this context should have quotation marks rather than be italicized. I don't remember the exact policy based on the Manual of Style, but he does.
• "In memoriam" is Anglicized (as in, it's not considered a foreign phrase as it appears in English-language dictionaries as a loanword or I guess loanphrase in this case) per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. So it's not italicized as a foreign phrase. As a minor work (i.e. part of/a segment of a TV show/special/program), it is rendered in quotations per MOS:MINORWORK. Hope that helps. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Could Ref. 25 be moved into Ref. 24?

• Done

• In response, Kapoor and Mullan released a statement saying, "As a Canadian boy of South Asian descent and a girl from London who grew up watching the Oscars, dreaming of being part of it, this is a 'pinch me' moment!” said Kapoor and Mullan. “This has been an exceptional year for the movies, and it's an absolute privilege to be leading the team celebrating the global film industry and the astounding talents that bring these cinematic stories to life. We're dedicated to making it a remarkable celebration for all." ==> You might need to remove 'said Kapoor and Mullan'.

• Done: Removed phrase since it is implied Kapoor and Mullan said the quote at the beginning, and therefore, it is redundant to mention them again.

Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo: I've read your comments and have made to respective corrections to them or have responded to them.

--Birdienest81talk 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait for Joeyconnick's response on the quotation marks vs italics issue, and then I can support. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support, but perhaps go back through the various ceremony pages and retroactively fix the quotations/italics issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

Packers Heritage Trail

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I got to walk some of this trail and get some photos, it was awesome as a Packers fan and history buff. Hope you enjoy! As always, happy to address any concerns or issues promtly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Packers are linked in both of the first two sentences - no need for the second
  • The first link is to History of the Green Bay Packers and the second link is to Green Bay Packers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Nowhere does the lead state who/what the Green Bay Packers are i.e. an American football team
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• "All of the 25 sites have bronze commemorative plaques that connect the history of the site" - not sure what you mean by "connect the history of the site". Do you mean something like "relate to the history of the site".....?
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• "the plaque for Lombardi's home and the plaque for Lambeau's gravesite is located" - two plaques are mentioned so the verb should be plural
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• In the table, some of the entries in the "site" column are randomly centre-aligned
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, was there anything else I can address? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Not based on the above, but I thought I'd just hang fire and see how the discussion below about including rationales (for want of a better term) went..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

The table needs to tell me why these sites are relevant. What is special about this church? What happened at the ballroom? Etc. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92, the sources don't provide this information. The only place I could get this information is my physically visiting each plaque or by purchasing Christl's book, which unfortunately isn't available on Amazon.com. You could maybe make the case that I could just do some standalone research and infer why each one is significant to the Packers, but imho that pushes OR a bit too much (I would be inferring why each site was placed on the trail). I am just providing what is currently available via sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

[6] and [7] have images of the plaques. Citing these or the plaques directly would not be OR. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the size of the table. Would a new section of text explaining the sites be agreeable to you? Maybe expand the last paragraph of the lead? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think all the sites should have a blurb even if only a few words, so that's better in the table than a paragraph. It's not that big a table – or perhaps the coordinates could be moved under the addresses. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I will get to this in the next few days Reywas92. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Reywas92, I have completed the above. Please let me know if you have any other comments or concerns. Appreciate the recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the descriptions. I made a couple small edits. The plaque location and significance columns don't need to be sortable. I'd also suggest either merging the plaque location into the address column or the coordinates into either of those, but it's not a must-do. Otherwise support. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Reywas92, thank you for your support. I made the columns unsortable. I'll keep looking at the possibility of merging columns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|August 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Why is the first item in the list not numbered? It also does not have a row scope
  • It is not numbered in the source. The Plaza is not a heritage site, rather it is the commemorative "summary" of the Trail.
• Quite a few sites are not actually proper names and should not be capitalized in the "site" column, please work to convert some of these to sentence case. "Vince Lombardi's Home" for example should be lowercase.
  • I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Current item #18, Packers Practice Fields doesn't have an address, just a street, in the table, but the source shows an address
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Same as the above, but for item #21 (Indian and Acme Packing Plants)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Using your regular reference formatting, shouldn't "GoPressTimes.com", a newspaper, be formatted as "The Press Times" instead? I recognize they don't have an article, at least that I could find, but this would match your typical formatting
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Responded above Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007:

• Perhaps we can consider a footnote or something for the number column? Or rename it to site number or something similar?
• I am matching the source here. Seeing as they are formal titles of heritage sites along the trail, I am not sure what takes precedence. – My understanding, and I'd love to be corrected if I am wrong, is that we would try to lowercase where appropriate when promoting to FA or FL.

I think those are the last two things to iron out :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to "Site #" and lower cased the ones that were more descriptive titles. Let me know if that works Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I just wanted to let you know that I have added a few sources since you completed the source review. Not sure if you want to reconfirm the source review or not. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me still, no issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team
• There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"

-- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• • EN-Jungwon, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    Support -- EN-Jungwon 00:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Seattle Kraken broadcasters

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this list enough sources and enough prose to earn a spot as a Featured List. Feel free to review. XR228 (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the lead image should be right at the top of the lead. This seems to me to be the norm.
• Are there appropriate links for play-by-play announcer and color analyst?
• "Olczyk would maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and would call the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed" => "Olczyk maintain his job at TNT as the lead color commentator and called the Kraken's games as his schedule allowed"
• "did the same for Olczyk and Piper Shaw for the 2022–23 season onward" - who's Piper Shaw? This is the first mention of them.....
• Root Sports Northwest should be linked on first use in the body
• That's it for me I think. The US model of sports broadcasting is rather alien to me over here in the UK but nonetheless I found this a clear and easy read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Columns have no scopes
• What is "most games" supposed to mean? This needs to be defined in some capacity
• What are the tables sourced to? It's not clear to me.
• Add Wikilinks to sources in the publisher/website/work fields for consistency (several include links, while others do not)
• Image of Alison Lukan should probably be cropped since it looks like the focus is on the hockey player
• Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
• Consider adding archive links the archive bot is back up
• KPUG has apparently been an affiliate since 2022, according to the tweet used as a source. Can we do any better than this tweet? Given how long it's been, I would hope/expect that it's also sourced elsewhere.
• Based on the source for the 2023–24 season, would this then mean that KPUG's FM station is no longer an affiliate? Or is this specifically citing stations which are part of the iheart radio network?
• Throughout their history, Kraken games have been televised on Root Sports Northwest and radio broadcast primarily on KJR-FM. – This sentence is rather clunky. I'm sure they've been televised plenty of places, but was the intent to say they're primarily televised on Root Sports as well? Or just "radio broadcast primarily" on KJR-FM?
• Image alt texts could be improved. "Man holding microphone" would be better as "John Forslund holding a microphone". These are meant to be a description of the image, we don't need to go into serious detail, but it's better that we note who's in the image when we can for someone who's visually impaired.
• Additionally, if you don't want to crop the image, "Woman wearing headphones" is not a good alt description for File:Los Angeles Kings at Seattle Kraken - November 19, 2022 - Brandon Tanev and Allison Lukan (52519198214).jpg.
• Add author to ref 15

Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. For the issues with the section about radio affiliates, I decided to completely redo it according to the source from iHeartRadio. (see here) XR228 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh XR228 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes that have been made. Althought I would encourage the removal of the width=100% attribute, as I think it makes the table wider than it needs to be. That's a personal preference and nothing that would hold up this nomination.

Refs 12, 13, and 17 still need to be specified as needing a subscription. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I have made the changes. Personally, I think having the tables' with be 100% looks better aesthetically. Just my opinion. XR228 (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I find the extremely wide "play-by-play" column to be off putting and to look like the table is improperly formatted, but it's not a deal breaker. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor note: the scope=col tags make the header cells bolded, so you don't need to bold them again (right now the column headers are double-bold). --PresN 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: Fixed. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

source

Ill do this =D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

All the sources seem reliable though boarderline on HockeyDB

• Any reasons why Davy Jones locker room is listed as being owned by Vox? None of the other sources list their owners.
• All references uses an inconsistent dating style per MOS:DATEUNIFY
• Ref 1 is titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history at HockeyDB.com" when it should be titled "Seattle Kraken hockey team statistics and history" using the via parameter to include HockeyDB
• Archive refs 21 and 24
• Refs 5, 13 are written by Geoff Baker
• Refs 10 and 21, not mandatory but consider using Template:Cite press release

That's all I found. Ping me when done! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is an unusually specific type of episode list. Most episode lists cover all episodes of a programme, or are split by year/season. However, this specific list covers a very narrowly specific group of episodes and I thought it would make an interesting featured list. I've spent a bit of time improving sources, and expanding the prose, and feel that it would make a great addition to Wikipedia's featured content. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• As the lead mentions "1963-1989" and "since 2005" I think you should clarify that the show was off the air for the years in between
• Also, I would put the 1963-1989 bit before the since 2005 bit
• "held a record for the highest watched BBC drama from its broadcast until 2021" - this is a misrepresentation of the source. The source says the Line of Duty episode was the highest-viewed drama episode since the Dr Who episode, but it doesn't state that prior to this the Dr Who episode was the most viewed of all time. Indeed, at the point of its broadcast Voyage wasn't even the most-viewed Dr Who episode of all time (see City of Death#Broadcast and reception), let alone the most-viewed episode of any BBC drama ever. This applies to both the lead and body.
• "During the third season, the twelve-part serial The Daleks' Master Plan was broadcast weekly over the 1965–1966 Christmas period" - this makes it sound like all 12 episodes were broadcast over Christamas, which obviously isn't the case
• "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005 with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner the first proper" => "When Doctor Who was revived in 2005, with Russell T Davies acting as showrunner, the first proper"
• "A special episode aired on New Year's day in 2010" - capital D on Day
• "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World" being the first time the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special" => "Moffat also returned to pen the 2024 special, "Joy to the World", marking the first time that the incumbent showrunner did not write the holiday special"
• Rose is not linked or given a surname in the first episode description, even though other characters are
• Tenth Doctor is linked multiple times but not on first usage
• Same goes for the TARDIS
• "warns Wilfred to arm himself to before departing" => "warns Wilfred to arm himself before departing"
• "The Doctor and Wilfred become fugitives from the Masters" - plural?
• "He also crates" => "He also creates"
• "realises that Clara is the same person as Oswin Oswald" - could do with explaining who she was
• "in exchange the return of the Captain" => "in exchange for the return of the Captain"
• Link Jack Harkness
• "They rejoin with her companions." => "They rejoin her companions."
• "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnap the baby" => "Ruby witnesses goblins kidnapping the baby"
• "when it was beat by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty" => "when it was beaten by the sixth series finale of Line of Duty"
• "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] and "The Husbands of River Song"." => "while others have named the best to be "The Runaway Bride",[27][28] "Last Christmas",[29][30] or "The Husbands of River Song"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks once again for the review! I believe I've addressed everything. The episode summaries are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why somethings are/aren't linked where they typically are. For that reason, I added a note for the Clara Oswin Oswald explanation, which should help satisfy that comment since it didn't need the full explanation there (the summary for Asylum of the Daleks summary is just a few episodes above on Doctor Who series 7).

I had been working on a Line of Duty article before I wrote this, hence why the wrong information was added. I was attempting to briefly explain it, without going into as much detail as I did on Line of Duty series 6. Just for reference, The original source I had in this article actually addressed LoD 6.6, not 6.7, and from what it reads, that episode only had "average 11 million" (or 10.9 million) viewers and actually didn't exceed VotD's 11.7. It's just saying that nothing had reached that high since 2008's special. And this source specifically states that LoD 6.7 was "the most watched episode of any drama since modern records began in 2002, not including soaps", which (when simplifying) is where the accidental misrepresentation likely came in. I ultimately removed it here, just because going into that much detail seemed out of scope. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

1. Can you improve the alt text for the image beyond "DVD cover art"? At least say what it's the DVD cover art of.
2. "story-arc" should be "story arc"
3. Ref 1 – Website is not "BBC Doctor Who website", recommend changing the source of this to BBC One
4. Ref 13 – Not seeing how the source is BBC Three here. Probably better to use BBC iPlayer.
5. Ref 21 – Uses "Cultbox.co.uk" whereas refs 12 and 24 just use "CultBox"
6. Ref 21 – No author listed, one mentioned at source
7. Ref 25 – Change The Associated Press to just Associated Press
8. Ref 27 – Item 4 in there should be changed from Screenrant to Screen Rant
9. Ref 29 – Change "The Pop Verse" to PopVerse. This also lists a different publish date than what's used in the article
10. Why should we treat "The Doctor Who Companion" as a reliable source? Seems to be a WordPress blog.
11. Why should we treat "Doctor Who News" as a reliable source? It seems all of the ratings rely on this, whereas there's likely better sources that could be used.
12. Why should we treat "Nerdgazm" as a reliable source? I see they have editors listed, but I'm not exactly sold on them
13. Archives should be added to a number of these links where possibly

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I believe I've addressed most everything.

Ref 13 specifically uses {{Cite episode}} which asks for the network the episode first aired on. For Doctor Who: Unleashed that's both BBC Three and iPlayer so I added iPlayer but left Three as well.

Perhaps @Alex 21: can help me out really quick for the reliability of Doctor Who News? I recall there being a semi-recent discussion on it, but I can't seem to locate it. Overnight ratings seem to be covered pretty widely, but from a quick search on the three most recent Christmas specials, I didn't' seem to find any better sources. I can do a deeper dive if need-be, Broadcast usually covers them, but it would take a minute to dig around there, so I'll wait and see if Alex has something to say first. I do know that Doctor Who News has passed through a significant number of GA's, including the series and some episode articles, all by separate independent reviewers. It's also been used in other featured content as well (here, here, here, and here).

I replaced The Doctor Who Companion with DWN also pending Alex's response, but will look for something else if need be. Nerdgazm was removed as the sentence that supported had more that reference. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the reply. I looked at the other featured content that you mentioned and all of it was promoted 15+ years ago. Given how our standards have drastically changed since those times, I don't feel comfortable using those as a point in favour of accepting DWN. It looks like that's the only thing we have left to address, so I'll wait for Alex's response or for a link to a relevant discussion (please ping when replying). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Doctor Who News has been phased out in this article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• was release
• Doctor Who, along with other television series in the Whoniverse, have occasionally broadcast - It should be "has".
• I think the paragraph which explains what the show is about should be placed further above, immediately after the introductory one.
• Richard Riley, a Biostatistics professor at the University of Birmingham conducted - A comma is missing.
• the first episode of another spin-off, The Sarah Jane Adventures was broadcast - A comma is missing.
• encounters a man calling himself "the Doctor" and his companion Rosita Farisi, attempting to capture a Cybershade - I don't think there's need for that comma.
• the miserly Kazran Sardick who refuses - A comma is missing.
• but, the - No need for that comma.
• that escapes - "which".
• The Doctor has been imprisoned for a number of decades is set free by Jack Harkness - That sentence doesn't quite make sense.
• The Doctor, Yaz and Dan - The Oxford comma has been used throughout, so it would be better to make it consistent and use it here as well.

That's what I saw, TheDoctorWho. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: I believe that I have addressed everything. Thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, TheDoctorWho, and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of cities in Crimea

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Been working on this list for some time now and have done waves of overhauls to try to get it at the FL level. Given the recent promotion of my FLN for Cities in Luhansk Oblast and my completion of everything I can do from my end for my FLN for Cities in Donetsk Oblast, I thought I'd move ahead and get this nomination started. It's not perfectly ready and I plan on editing it more during the nomination period but considering the lengthy timeframe of the FL process and the benefits of getting feedback while editing, thought it'd be better to get it started now and continue to work on it simultaneously with the nom. Unlike the other two FL noms for Donetsk and Luhansk, this list is unique in that it represents a geographic area with two distinct legal entities: the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and city with special status Sevastopol. Given this and its occupation by Russia since 2014, this list has a larger scope and will naturally be more complex/detailed and longer than the other lists. Imo the legal particulars of Sevastopol can get really confusing so feel free to post questions on this nom or reach out if it helps! Thanks in advance y'all for the suggestions and excited to get this nom started! :) Dan the Animator 21:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

This is really interesting! I do not speak Russian or Ukrainian, so I cannot speak for the sources, but

• The lede is well-written. Don't really have anything to add here.

Thanks! :)

• Table formatting seems good to me — great job incorporating a bunch of different complicated info with the dual administrative schemes.

Thanks again!!!

• My only real qualm is that we don't have any information on Balaklava; would there be a way to incorporate that into the list while marking it's only recognized as a city by Russia? I feel it's worth including as a de facto city on the peninsula.

I considered this and tried it out but I don't think it's practical. Both the 2001 Ukrainian and 2014 Russian censuses include Balaklava's stats as part of Sevastapol's population numbers (as stated in the efn note next to Sevastapol's numbers), so to have Balaklava included separately would suggest that its counted separately from Sevastapol, which isn't the case. There are also no separate population statistics of Balaklava itself from 2001 as far as I can tell and its unclear what the only 2014 number I found for Balaklava is actually for (my understanding is that it actually represents the population of Balaklava city council (which includes multiple nearby villages/settlements that aren't actually part of Balaklava itself) so it's not ideal to have that number here either). Given this, the only information that would be included in the table for Balaklava would be its alternate names (which are simply all variations of Balaklava) and its de facto/de jure subdivisions, which doesn't really add anything since it's already explained in the lead that Russia and Ukraine both consider Balaklava as part of Sevastapol. Hopefully my explanation makes sense but feel free to let me know if you still think it should be added to the table. I don't feel particularly strongly about it but I also don't see any compelling reason for including it either.

That's all from me for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense with Balakalva; I feel free it's fine to leave it out of the table. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The territory of Crimea, including Sevastopol, has been" - this reads a bit weirdly, because Sevastopol hasn't been introduced, so it's unclear why it gets singled out from the rest of the region here. It also isn't linked until the second usage.

Fixed: removed "including Sevastapol" so it flows better

• The lead uses both "recognized" (US spelling) and "recognised" (Commonwealth spelling) and there's a similar inconsistency with other words. Pick one variety of English and use it consistently.

Fixed: standardized to the American spelling and added the Eng-var template too

• Sevastopol is overlinked in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed

• Thanks Generalissima and ChrisTheDude for the reviews and apologies for the very belated reply! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article and also: based on a suggestion in the recently closed FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast, I decided to go ahead and switch out the infoboxes on all these oblasts lists with coordinate maps with links & locations for each city. For the other articles I feel it adds tremendously but given the .png map image for Crimea is already so detailed and in many ways better than the coord map, let me know which option this list should use (the coord map, the infobox with image, or just the image). I also kept the infobox commented out so feel free to preview it in visual editor too if it helps. Thanks again in advance for all the help! :) Dan the Animator 06:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• If I didn't misunderstand the sentence, while since its annexation, the region has been de facto governed by Russia is missing a comma before "since".
• Can anything be done to avoid the triple repetition of the with a recorded population of X people formula?
• 11 city municipalities and 14 raions and merging them into ten reformed raions - MOS:NUMNOTES states that "comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures", so make it "10" for the sake of consistency.
• As previously noted in another similar nomination, a "the" should be added before the name of all three Wikipedias in the notes.
• Is there a particular reason why the images have been moved to another section? I think it would make more sense to have them before the table, as is the case in similar lists.

That's all I saw, Dantheanimator. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense for the review! :) Most of the parts should be fixed now and also reworded the census part so hopefully its better (will rewrite it more though if it helps). About the image section, I wasn't too sure what you had in mind. When I started work on this article, the images were included within the table rows for each city. Due to the larger size and greater complexity of this table compared to the tables in the other oblast cities lists, I decided earlier on to move the photos to a separate section and leave them there so they don't clutter the table. If I'm understanding right, the suggestion is to move the gallery section in between the Administrative divisions and List of cities sections, similar to how List of cities in New Brunswick has the photos above the table? I don't feel too strongly about it but I do think its current location is fine and its better to try to keep the table closer to the lead since its the main focus of the article.

Otherwise, what's your thoughts on how the images should be displayed/formatted? The table as-is already just barely fits on my laptop's full desktop screen and I don't think it would make sense to add additional columns to the table since it'll just cause it to spill out of the screen. I'm also open to removing the section entirely though I think it does add some value (and its also well-sourced). Let me know what you think. Dan the Animator 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the edits. In some similar lists (see this one, for instance), the images are included just before the table. But I don't really have a problem with how the images are laid out here, I was just curious about it. Nice work on the list, as always. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah got it. If it weren't for the additional Administrative divisions section, I'd have it laid out the same but that section really pushes the list content lower in the page than ideal. Many thanks again for the comments! :) Dan the Animator 19:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of accolades received by Parasite

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Parasite was released in 2019 and made history by becoming the first non English-language film to win Best Picture in 2019. The style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing. Awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you as always for the reviews. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• 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.
• For header cells (like "AACTA International Awards") which span multiple rows, the scope should be "rowgroup" and not "row".
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Found a few more issues:

  • Most of the dates are in dmy format, but i noticed "March 14, 2020" in one of the notes.
  • There is a CS1 - multiple authors error in one of the refs.
  • The director's image in the infobox is missing alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824; done the first and last point. Could you point out which ref the error is cropping up on? I can't seem to find it for some reason. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The sports.donga.com one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've changed it, and hopefully that should fix it. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Question—is it normal practice for both the infobox and list to overlap this much? I'm a newbie to these kinds of lists. It feels a little redundant; the win/count info per award I feel could just be merged into the table. The totals I feel maybe could be left in the infobox. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Also the show/hide button in the infobox doesn't seem to be working for me; I tried a Chromium and Safari browser on Mac and neither worked. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's really odd, I'm not having this issue on either browser. Also, to me the infobox appears collapsed by default, so that only the totals show, not each individual nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, to verify we're talking about the same things, I'm talking about the [show] button next to the Accolades header in the infobox. Also, I know each row in the infobox has only the totals, I'm saying listing the totals for each individual award circuit (I.e. AACTA Awards, AACTA International Awards, ARP Movies... etc) feels a bit redundant with the list in the body. I'm asking what you think about, if possible, only showing the totals bit at the bottom of the infobox: Wins 219 and Nominations 353. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the [show/hide] button works fine for me; the issue has been brought up on the template's talk page. I think it's fine to show the individual totals, particularly as the infobox is (at least supposed to be) collapsed by default.

  Sgubaldo (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah! Ok, that all makes sense. Looks good to me then! 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• Regarding the Guinness World Records distinction of being the most awarded foreign-language film at the Oscars alongside Fanny and Alexander and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the 2022 version of All Quiet on the Western Front has also now tied the record according to this article from Slash Film. I know Guinness World Records noted the record back in 2020, but I'm wondering if it should be denoted that All Quiet on the Western Front has matched that record. I can see arguments in favor and not in favor, but I just want to get your take on it.
• Also, all movie titles in the references should be italicized as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

That's all I have for now.

--Birdienest81talk 08:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Birdienest81, added information about All Quiet on the Western Front (good catch), and fixed the MOS:CONFORMTITLE issue. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Birdienest81, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been, and now I can lend my support. Birdienest81talk 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

1987–88 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Another snooker list. For once, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association decided not to mess about with the system from the previous year, obviously finding it was already adequately complicated for their tastes. A couple of players got lost in a later version; from sources I'm able to account for one of them. Once again, Steve Davis was the clear leader at the top. Number one for six seasons when the rankings started, Ray Reardon (R.I.P.) was out of the top 16 for the first time. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season had been" => "White, who won two ranking titles in the 1986–87 season, had been"
• "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "(NT)" denotes a "non-tournament" players, meaning....." - this is a bit mangled. I think what you mean is "of which those ranked 121 or lower became "non-tournament" (NT) players, meaning....."
• "1986 & 1987 world championships" => "1986 and 1987 world championships"
• The note needs a full stop at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Many thank, ChrisTheDude. I've made those amendments. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Alavense

• 1986–87 snooker season is linked twice in consecutive paragraphs.
• "Discussing the rankings for 1987–88, the snooker journalist Terry Smith asserted that "Every player in the lower ranks has one immediate aim – a place in the top 16 ... that elite top group."" - Can {{ndash}} be used?
• "Players in the top 16 were seeded into the last-32 round of the 1988 World Snooker Championship, and received invitations to the 1988 Masters" - I don't see the need for that comma.
• "John Parrott, Mike Hallett and Dean Reynolds moved into the top 16 for the first time, while Kirk Stevens, Tony Meo and Ray Reardon fell out of the top 16" - The second "the top 16" could be replaced by an "it".
• "published in snooker magazines in June 1987" reads a bit vague, I think. What are "snooker magazines"? How many of those were there? Is it a set list? Maybe a bit more of information could be provided in a note.

• I've taken that out. The list was published around 18 May 1987 (given that it got press mentions on 19 May), but I'm pretty sure that no source would have published anything beyond the top 20 before Snooker Scene and Pot Black both had the full list in their June issues. Let me know if you think I should add something back in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• As per MOS:LISTBULLET, "Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements, for example when the elements are". Sentences and fragments are mixed here, but I don't think that's a problem here. Anyway, given that there are full sentences, I think final periods would be more appropriate, and then the capitalization at the beginning of each element makes more sense.
• There's only one "Smith 1987", so there's no need for the "a".

• "Smith, Terry (19 May 1987). "Hendry makes giant leap". The Daily Telegraph. p. 25." is treated as a "Smith 1987" and taking out the a's produces "Harv error: CITEREFSmith1987 has multiple targets (2×)." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can see in the examples given in MOS:ALT, I don't think the alternative text has to be that vague. "A man" could be replaced by "Steve Davis" in the first one and "Jimmy White" in the second one.

That's all I saw. Thank you for your effort, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Alavense. I've implemented the changes, except where noted above. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt responses, BennyOnTheLoose. I did this to avoid having the "a" alongside the year. You can revert it if you don't like it. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made a note of that! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. In particular, "1985–86 season" and "1986–87 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup, and the various cells under it "MT" to "WC" should have scope=col.
• "'(New)' denotes a player who was new to the tour for the 1987–88 season." - This can be removed since it isn't referenced in the table. Please ping me when you have fixed these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Hopefully I've implemented the changes correctly - let me know if not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. P.S. Given that the cells have numbers, there is no need to add "data-sort-type=text" to the various header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I'd appreciate comments at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images self-published, AGF.
• All images have alt text.
• All images properly captioned.
• All images relevant to the text.

Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [13].

---

Rock-climbing equipment

Nominator(s): Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of equipment for the discipline of rock climbing. While individual elements of rock climbing equipment will change/evolve, the essence is quite stable. Rock climbing is now a new Olympic Sport, so I think this area will get even more attention in the future. I had proposed it as a GA but the recommendation was that the article was more of a list, which is correct, and that it would be a good suggestion as an FL per Talk:Rock-climbing equipment/GA1. thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

This review will take me a little while – feel free to ping me if I go more than a few days without following up.

• Images need alt text

Done.

• "And finally" → "Finally,"

Done.

• The lead lists modern devices with the older devices they replaced – where is this information supported in the body? For instance, I see no mention of chockstones after the lead.

Done., I have mentioned chockstones in the body, where they were replaced by nuts.

• Not technically wrong, but the list has a tendency to overuse parentheses; some of them can be reworked
  • Example: Under Type of climbing, "and its X variant" doesn't need parentheses

Done., hopefully that is better now.

• • Another example: The second paragraph of Ropes (starting with "Some climbers will use...") has 4 sets of parentheses in one sentence. This ends up feeling really choppy.

Done., and agree, hopefully better now.

• Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, write out acronyms where they first appear: UIAA, CEN, OSHA, maybe CE marking?

Done., CE marking is the actual name here.

• "in lieu CEN" → "in lieu of CEN"

Done.

• "which are (circa 7–8 mm)" – misuse of parentheses

Done.

• "(or 'tape')," – no comma needed

Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Delighted that you are willing to help @RunningTiger123. This is (clearly) my first attempt at Featured article status. I have a few GAs under my belt and I think I am writing at a reasonable GA standard, but have little concept of FA stardard, but if you are up for it, I would love to learn and happy to spend time on this with you at whatever pace you prefer. thanks again :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

More comments:

• "European European Committee for Standardization" – redundant

Done.

• "e.g. the asymmetric/offset D-shape is the most common" – misuse of "e.g."

Done.

• • "e.g." means "for example" – if you substitute "for example" in place of "e.g." and it doesn't make sense, you're using the wrong phrase

understand thanks,

• "(and materials used)" – no need for parentheses

Done.

• "e.g. they require little in the way of gear-carrying loops" – another misuse of "e.g."

Done.

• "e.g. to fit around heaving winter clothing" – same thing

Done.

• Link Petzl and Wild Country at first occurrence (as well as any other companies)

Done.

• First paragraph under Belay devices is unsourced

Done.

• "e.g. a static rope that is hanging from a fixed anchor" – another "e.g."

Done.

• "Petzel Traxion" – typo for Petzl

Done.

• "Petzel Micro Traxion, and Camp Lift" – no comma needed, also same typo?

Done.

• "SCLDs" – should be SLCDs? (occurs twice)

Done.

• "like a Hex" – use lowercase for consistency

Done.

• Don't hyphenate "bolt-hangers" for consistency

Done.

• "stands one on aider" – I think this should be "stands on one aider"?

Done.

• "Rock climbing hammers are mainly used..." – bullet point doesn't follow the same opening format as all of the others

Done.

• A lot of bullet points under Miscellaneous equipment are unsourced

Done., I also added one extra item, the Knee pad, which is a commonly used piece of equipment

• "is used by all rock climbers" – all is a strong word, so it either needs to be clearly sourced or removed

Done., changed to "is very popular amongst rock climbers"

• Remove comma after parentheses for medical tape

Done.

• Suggest archiving web sources (see WP:IABOT)

checking this.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123, thanks for those comments. I have made all of the changes but I am not sure I understand the last one re WP:IABOT? My understanding is that that bot runs automatically, or am I meant to run it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You can run IABot on demand here – it's not required but it can be nice to include. Also, I think you missed the "e.g. a static rope..." comment above, but I don't think it's worth waiting to support over that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, have fixed the "static rope" now, and I will run the IAB. Thanks so much for your help and comments on this. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Just ran the IABot as well - wasn't aware of that. Thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

General

• Be conscientious of your use of "where", which is often not the best word for what you are trying to say.

done, good point and have reduced the # of where's to 3

• I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on "e.g."... Ill try to see if I can find something.

I found MOS:ABBR, and while there is no mention of "e.g." it does use the term a lot?

• You use a lot of parentheses; not necessarily bad but it is best to try to word sentences in such a way that this isn't needed as much.

That is a fair point. I have taken out most cases where they are used outside of when it is an "(e.g. )" or "(also known as..)" situation.

Lead

• Why is "rock-climbing" hyphenated in the title and the article? Rock climbing isn't.

I am not sure about the grammar of whether combining the word "equipment" necessitates the hyphen. I have found books with/without the hyphen. I am happy to do either way but would need admin support to remove it as it was originally moved from the existing rock climbing equipment in 2011?

When this FLC is done, it should be moved. I've never seen the hyphen before and don't see any grammatical necessity for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Can you link "climbing" as climbing in the first sentence?

done

• Bouldering needs the least equipment outside of shoes and chalk and optional crash pads. replace the first "and" with a comma.

done

• Finally, aid climbing uses unique equipment (e.g. aiders). - add to assist the climber in upward movement (e.g. aiders) or something similar

done, said ".. to give mechanical assistance to the climber in their upward movement (e.g. aiders)"

• done manually, and with greater control (in all conditions) and less effort delete the first "and"

done

Use and certification

• Equipment is limited to climbing shoes and chalk (with chalk bag). add "generally" before "limited" as neither shoes nor chalk are technically actually required to climb

done

• variant, adds a rope, harness, and belay device, but no general climbing protection outside of that which is used to create the anchor point at the top of the climb from which the top rope is hung (which is usually done with carabiners, slings, and/or cord) run-on sentence. Recommend a full stop after "belay device"

done

• Recommend replacing "in-situ" with on-site or linking in-situ

done, replaced with on-site

• Why is "lead-climbing" hyphenated? Lead climbing isn't.

done, should not be hyphenated

• every pitch needs to be solo climbed (SLDs) what is "SLDs" referencing here? SLDs is later defined in the article as "self-locking devices"

done, expanded to self-locking device and added "using"

• At least link "Brexit" or explain. Like "After the United Kingdom left the European Union, it adopted the UKCA certification in place of the CEN.

done, used your wording which is better

• UKCA needs to be defined

done, linked to the UKCA marking article

Ropes and slings

• Some climbers will use a single full-thickness climbing rope of circa 9–11 mm circa -> approximately. mm should be defined ({{Abbr}})

done for both

• both shouldn't be italicized

done

• "Circa" again, just use the more common "approximately"

done it for the full article

• Where two thinner ropes are used that are both clipped into each protection point (i.e. it is not to reduce rope drag, but instead to have a backup rope for long climbs), it is known as twin roping add in the 7-8 mm thickness after "tinner rope", like two thinner ropes, typically 7-8 mm in thickness, are. Also, it would sound better to just start with Twin roping is...

done all suggestions

• Climbers use webbing that has been sewn using a certified standard of reinforced stitching into various lengths of closed loops called "slings" (or "runners"), which can be used in a wide range of situations, including wrapping around sections of rock (e.g. for abseiling, or creating belay anchors, or as passive protection), or tied to other equipment—often via carabiners—to create a longer version of a quickdraw or even a makeshift lanyard. long run-on sentence. Find somewhere to split into two.

done.

• "Circa" again

done, replaced for full article.

• Cord loops (also known as "cordelettes") serve a wide variety of functions in rock climbing including creating friction prusik knots for ascending or gripping fixed climbing ropes, usually using thinner circa 5–6 mm cord, or for attaching to, and equalizing forces across, multiple fixed anchors points,[15] such as when setting up abseil or belay anchors on multi-pitch climbing routes, usually using thicker circa 7–8 mm cord. long run-on sentence again. Split.

done

Rope devices

• You define "SLD" multiple times in the article. You also link the second use of the term. You should really link and define at the first instance. Maybe move the SLD section up above descenders?

done, per above, I have now linked to it at its first mention in the "Type of climbing" sub-section. Given that, have not moved the SLD section above Descenders, and left in alphabetical order?

Protection devices

• This section is the only one where you introduce the term with a full stop immediately after (e.g. Hexes. instead of Hexes are...). Recommend changing to be consistent.

done, have changed to be consistent with the rest of the article

• Tricams are typically cheaper and lighter than SLCDs, and are less in use today. and -> but and no comma needed

done

• Similar to the previous section, you use SLCD before you define it. Maybe move "Active" before "Passive"

done, swapped

• is attached into which carabiners (and quickdraws) can be clipped. no need for the parentheses.

done

• decade, but have a finite, comma not need

done

• protection of choice, but are still, comma not needed

done

• Define or link "crag"

done, linked to crag (climbing)

Aid equipment

• "aid" to the aid climber in ascending, no need for the second "aid"

done

• which are a central part of the technique of aid climbing where they are normally used in pairs some rewrite needed as it is confusing. Is it a central part of aid climbing only when used in pairs? "where" is probably not the right word either (when is more appropriate)

done, split sentence and re-worded to ".. and are a central part of the technique of aid climbing. They are normally used in pairs .."

• Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing where they link the harness to the aider (see above); not sure what you mean by "where they link the harness to the aider" nor do I understand what the "see above" is referencing.

done, re-worded to "Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing. They are used to attach the harness to the aider. Care has to be taken ...."

• Copperheads are only used in aid climbing and their low strength means that they can only handle the "static bodyweight" of an ascending aid climber, and will likely fail where the climber makes a dynamic fall. the first and should be a "but" and the comma before the second "and" isn't needed

done

• These are steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) that are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). Mostly used in aid climbing, but they have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e.hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). -> Steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). They are mostly used in aid climbing but have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e. the hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). Note that in my update, I fixed a missing space between "i.e." and "hook"

done, and merged sentence with the heading of "Hooks", per earlier changes.

• These are mainly used by aid climbers to hammer in various types of pitons while ascending routes; note that clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers as all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis. -> A type of hammer made insert various types of pitons whilee ascending routes; clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers because all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis.

done

Clothing equipment

• The anchor link to belay glasses doesn't work for me (i.e. it doesn't go to the specific term in that page)

done, linked to the Belay glasses article

• Belay gloves are used to protect the hands when doing lots of belaying (especially on big wall climbing routes), and their construction from leather or other hard-wearing materials, generally improves grip with the rope, which lessens the risk of a failure of the belay system. I would recommend deleting ""when doing lots of belaying" as an obvious statement. Then add a full stop after the parenthetical.

done

• vulcanization should be linked ("vulcanized")

done

• "edging", and softer delete the comma

done

• particularly where the falling lead climber is flipped over. where -> when

done

Misc equipment

• This is the only section without an intro sentence. Recommend adding one for consistency.

done

• , which could cause ankle or back injuries. -> leading to injury.

done

• that has been dangerously worn down delete "dangerously" as editorializing

done

• Nut tools should be singular or "are" should be used

done, made singular

• climbers even use toothbrushes to clean the smallest holds without damaging them -> toothbrushes may be used to clean the smallest holds without damaging them

done

Training equipment

• A narrow flexible (e.g. it can be rolled up) all-metal, or PVC/webbing, ladder that, too many consecutive adjectives. Reword to something like A narrow and flexible ladder, typically capable of being rolled up, made from metal, PVC or webbing that

done

• that may be climbed up and down without the aid of the feet. replace "may" with "is typically"

done

• the "hangboard" is focused on change to "was developed to focus on"

done, re-worded the two sentences to say "is related to the campus board and was developed to focus on building static arm and finger strength;"

See also

• The Wikimedia commons box goes in the "External links" section per its documentation

done

Images

• All photos are appropriately licensed, captioned and have alt text. All do a good job of helping the article.

Nice work! Aszx5000 Please ping me when you are ready. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007 - only just back from my travels over the last few weeks but will get to work on the above shortly. Much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007:. Thanks for all your great input and comments listed above, all of which I have now hopefully incorporated into the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Support, really nice work on what is an atypical and challenging list Aszx5000. I made two small copyedits in the article, hope that they are ok with you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Those changes are great and your support is very much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Swiss Nobel laureates

Nominator(s): Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently created this list, with the aim to fulfill the featured list criteria from the start. I believe it does meet all of them, hence my nomination. Switzerland has been closely linked to the Nobel prize since the start, and a large number of laureates were Swiss. Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

I did significantly expand the last lead paragraph, which at the time of nomination only included Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita. I wanted to add some context with explanations that have been published in Swiss media, as well as a remark on the general Nobel controversies (Western bias is a pretty obvious one). This should provide better context and more WP:NPOV, avoiding the mildly celebratory tone that country-based lists end up having. Broc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Staraction

• Images need alt text.
• Use upright scaling instead of defining the size of an image. See WP:PIC#Thumbnail sizes.
  • Note to future reviewers: have not looked into copyright status of images yet. Not a full image review.
• "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel for Physics in 2019." --> "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2019."

Excited to see this list nominated! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Staraction! I added alt text to all images and changed the sentence as you suggested. Upright scaling can only be used with thumbnails, which might not be the best option in a table. What would you recommend? Broc (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Added upright scaling using "frameless" option. Broc (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row. In the case of this table, I think the primary column is the "Laureate" column which contains their name.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done thanks for the inputs, @MPGuy2824 Broc (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• List of Indian Nobel laureates seems to be only other nation-based nobel laureates list. It has a section of nominees who didn't win the award. You could consider adding them here too.
• The last paragraph of the lead section is just a single sentence. See if you can merge it with one of the paragraphs above it.
• Run IABot on the list.
• The Telegraph reference is generating a CS1 error. Please fix.
• That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 I adapted the lead section as suggested, ran IABot, and fixed the CS1 error.

  Regarding the list of nominees, I have a few concerns:

  1. A list of Swiss Nobel laureates certainly fulfills WP:NLIST, given the amount of sources publishing on the topic ([15][16][17][18] just to link a few). However, I could not find a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees.
  2. List of Indian Nobel laureates nicely distinguishes between Indian nationals at birth, individuals of Indian origin, people with acquired citizenship, but does so only for the list of laureates and not for the nominees. I am then left to wonder what the selection criterion for the nominees section was.
  3. The lack of a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees, combined with the relatively arbitrary definition of what "Swiss" means (in the case of laureates, "held Swiss citizenship at the time of the award" seems a commonly accepted criterion, but I do not know what would be a viable one for nominees), would make the creation of a list of nominees rather close to WP:OR, in my opinion.

  Broc (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  You can wikilink a few more terms/names like "Inter-Parliamentary Union", "Olympian Spring", "Fridtjof Nansen" and "Geneva Convention", but I'll support in advance of those changes. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Rationale for 'Nansen International Office for Refugees' is unreferenced. You could also add an emdash in the logo column of the same entry.

  Fixed, thanks Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• For Jack Steinberger, it is mentioned that he acquired honorary Swiss citizenship in 2006. However, the source states that he acquired honorary citizenship of a German town in 2006. Could you please clarify this?

  My mistake, he acquired honorary citizenship in 2000 from Geneva, per source. Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Question: Does the bestowal of honorary citizenship by a Swiss city or canton amount to acquisition of Swiss citizenship, like in the case of Max Theiler and Kofi Annan? If not, could they be put in the same category as Pauli? Nitro Absynthe (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is also a very valid question. The Swiss citizenship is given first by the city, then by the canton, and finally by the confederation. Per the Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship , "The granting of honorary citizenship to a foreign national by a canton or municipality without a federal naturalization permit does not have the same effect as naturalization." User:Nitro Absynthe should I rather split the table in two sections, one with the naturalized people (only Pauli) and one with the honorary citizens? Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @Broc, the nominator, as these comments have gone unaddressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I missed the comment in my watchlist. I answered above. Broc (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Broc, I feel like splitting would be better to avoid confusion. Also, there might be some discrepancy regarding Theiler's citizenship. According to this report by SERI (p. 16), Max Theiler is listed as a Swiss citizen. Maybe he could be placed in the naturalized citizen section with Pauli and Steinberger. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe uhm that's a tricky one. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland mentions that Theiler was Swiss citizen by birth (place of origin: Hasle), which makes sense as his parents were Swiss. On the other hand, he certainly received a honorary citizenship, again from Hasle, in 1952, which would not make sense if he already was a citizen. However, according to the list you shared, he was Swiss when he received the prize. I think it might be best to add him in the main list with a footnote. Broc (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Broc, agreed. I think that's better. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe done, with footnotes on Theiler and Annan. Thanks a lot for raising these points, I think the list is better off now. Broc (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

comment

• I think it's better to add Template:Nobel Prizes--金色黎明 (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Broc (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  support--金色黎明 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I see this as still awaiting a source review in the list, so will give it a shot.

• List entries: Main

Verifying these match Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger with the exceptions of Pauli (exclusion explained in lede) and Hermann Staudinger (explained in footnote).

• Table row entries: References

I spot-checked a few and they all appear to be to the Nobel website, verifying the row data. Did not check every single one but I imagine this is the least controversial part of the article.

• List entries: Later citizenship

Pauli is fine per above. Steinberger, though... the source just says "ab 2000 von Genf" and his Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about him acquiring Swiss citizenship late in life. The NZZ.ch "Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger" list above doesn't include him, and it was clearly created after 2000. Is there a source verifying this alleged Swiss citizenship more directly? For Koffi Annan, I'm of the opinion that honorary citizenship isn't enough to qualify for what this article is talking about. It's fine to discuss him in a footnote but I don't think this deserves a full table row, especially since the above NZZ.ch source also doesn't include him but does include other later-Swiss citizens like Pauli. Like, it would be weird to call Winston Churchill an American Nobel laureate because of his honorary American citizenship, right?

• Regarding Steinberger, this page from the Swiss Physical Society mentions Seit 2000 Bürger von Genf and the Swissinfo article mentions Er wirkte ab 1968 am Kernforschungszentrum CERN in Genf und wurde im Jahr 2000 eingebürgert. I would consider the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland to be a very reliable source, but I added the other two as well. Regarding Kofi Annan, I followed your suggestion and moved it to footnote [nb 3].Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Verified now, thanks. (Also, for clarity, I wasn't questioning the reliability of the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, but rather the question of whether it was even indicating Swiss citizenship at all, given that the mention was brief and oblique.)

• Additionally, four laureates acquired Swiss citizenship after the award:

Who's the fourth laureate? (Although it should be maybe two or three anyway per above if Annan is reduced to footnote status.)

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland have received the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded twice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross three times. Four of these organizations were also founded in Switzerland, and they all have their headquarters in Geneva, a city hosting more than 40 international organizations and 750 non-governmental organizations.[7]

I can't find this in either https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/ or the 2018 archived version. It all looks pretty non-controversial but perhaps needs a better source? Certainly should be easy to get a source on Geneva hosting a ton of UN & other global orgs.

• This was my mistake, I forgot to add the source I used. Fixed it now by adding a source from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Geneva facts look good. However the main concern was the "ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland" bit, which is really the same question as sourcing the orgs list. See below for ideas on that.

• List entries: Organizations

While it's not the end of the world if we do a tad bit of synthesis here... is there a source that explicitly lists this out?

• I couldn't find a complete list, no. There is one at the bottom here [19] and here, but neither are comprehensive. I'm not sure how I could add these to the list, do you have a suggestion? Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is where we write a fancy, long reference that explains where this is coming from when it's not from a source directly. You can include the other two links to prove that the topic of Swiss organizations winning Nobels isn't synthesis even if the lists aren't mirrored exactly. Something like:

  <ref>Ten organizations are based on the comprehensive list of Organization Winners at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-organizations/ (format this nicely as a cite). Non-comprehensive lists discussing the matter can be found at: (your two links here).</ref>

  Note that you can format long references drawing on multiple sources a little more nicely with Template:Multiref2 or Template:Unbulleted list citebundle if you'd like. Can be handy to ensure the citations for webpages are on new lines. Normally I'd stick the reference in the title of the table, but since you're using a style that doesn't have titles for tables, having it in the lede section on the "Ten Swiss organizations" line is fine too.

• Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita

The "per capita" article has been deleted, FWIW. (Swiss Info Source does check out, for all it's something of a statistical artifact.)

• What do you mean, the article has been deleted? I can still access both articles used as references. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Several factors have been suggested as possible explanation, including large public funding for research,[10]

[20] and [21] verify the raw amount of funding (although it's not clear it's even "public" funding - GTranslate offers "The private sector not only finances 65 percent of research and development here" for one line), but don't seem to connect it to the Nobel Prize or awards in general at all. The real reference here is https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/nach-physik-auszeichnung-deshalb-bringt-die-schweiz-so-viele-nobelpreistraeger-hervor - I'd reformulate the SNF links to be "see alsos" in the reference primarily cited to the SRF article, and then reuse that reference for both large public funding for research and good universities.

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• The Nobel Prize has also been often recognized as being biased towards Western countries.[12][13][14]

Nitpick: None of the sources seem to use the word "Switzerland" or "Swiss" (don't have access to the full Telegraph article so can't be sure there). Obviously Switzerland is a Western country, but it could be argued that the relevance of this isn't fully established. Not demanding this be removed, just it'd be nice if there was a source connecting the dots more directly. (I do get the above comment that this is to avoid being overly celebratory / chest-puffy.)

• Unfortunately, I could not find such source. However, omitting such important aspect (a widely recognized bias of Nobel prizes in favor of Western countries) only because it does not specifically mention Switzerland would not be according to WP:NPOV and give a rather promotional tone to the article. I do believe the current statement gives a fuller picture. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you gave it a look, it's fine. I agree it's a positive addition to the article, just a nice-to-have rather than a requirement on tying this to Swiss laureates.

• According to Nobel laureate Werner Arber, the large number of awards to Swiss nationals is "likely a statistical anomaly".

True, and in the cited source, but the source ALSO includes Richard Ernst saying that it's not a coincidence and he's confident Switzerland will remain on top in the future. Both Arber and Ernst are Nobel laureates, but there's really little reason to think that either would be THAT much more informed about Nobel-politics than, say, a historian of science like Roland Müller mentioned in passing in the article. (Plenty of Nobel laureates out there with weird opinions on things, cough, cough, James Watson.) While keeping the snappy Arber quote is fine, do you have any other sources saying it's a statistical anomaly so it's not resting solely on him? (Or, alternatively, include the nationalist "it's because the Swiss are just so awesome!" by contrast first, since it's coming from an equivalently weighted source, even if we both think it's "wrong".)

• Fixed by adding statement from Ernst. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Other comments unrelated to sources:

• Peace and Economic Sciences[nb 1],[1]

Shouldn't the footnote go after the punctuation as well? Also, this is a case where the Oxford comma is mandatory IMO even in an article that doesn't use that style, because there's an earlier entry on the list titled "Physiology or Medicine". This makes it appear that "Peace and Economic Sciences" is possibly a Nobel category as well, so a comma to set apart each list entry is required IMO.

• Fixed. Broc (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Birth & Death dates in the list

This has nothing to do with the sources, but I will plant my flag to plead that birth & death dates don't matter in this context. I know a lot of lists do include this information, and it is indeed in the Nobel webpage blurbs, but it's irrelevant and those other lists shouldn't include it either. "Age at time of Nobel award" perhaps but otherwise it's not relevant to this list. Not a blocking comment, it's up to you, but I'd personally either omit entirely, or just have a single column with both birth & death dates, sortable by birth dates. (Nobody should want to sort by death dates anyway? What would that even mean?) Totally optional, just dropping off my two cents.

Nice work overall. SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that it's best to reply after a person's comment and to ping them @Broc, that way @SnowFire can voice their support or point out things that still need to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I'm not done addressing all point yet, will do that as soon as I have a moment :) Broc (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire I think I addressed all points, see individual comments right below yours. Please let me know your thoughts.

As for birth and death dates: I removed the option to sort by death date (not very meaningful indeed). Age at the time of award might also be a valuable addition as the age of the laureates is often a point of discussion regarding Nobel prizes. I might add that at a later point, but would not want to remove the information in the current table, as the format is the same the Nobel Prize website uses in its blurbs. Broc (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, like I said I know that others opinions differs with mine on this, so I wanted to bring it up as a thought, but if you think it's relevant enough, go for it.

Just crafting a fancy citation for the ten orgs issue remaining - think we're very close! (I'd be happy to give it a shot if you'd like too.) SnowFire (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire I added the reference as you suggested in [nb 4], updated the entry from the IPB and removed the ICBL (I had initially added the entry from the German Wikipedia list, but I can't find evidence they were based in Geneva at the time of the award). Double-checking the list was worth it. Broc (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree the new footnote should do nicely, and more closely drawing the line from the sources definitely helps. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Sources look good to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) [22].

---

United States congressional delegations from Colorado

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Up next in the United States congressional delegations series from me is the state of Colorado! Previous lists included Utah, Indiana, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Arizona. I've tried my best to implement all the suggestions provided in previous nominations (in particular, with referencing; thank you EN-Jungwon!). Looking forward to hearing more of those suggestions! Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The current dean of the Colorado delegation is" - what does this mean?
• "eight representatives comprising of five Democrats and three Republicans" - either "comprising" or "consisting of" would be grammatically valid but "comprising of" is not
• You have two consecutive sentences which start with "Many senators from Colorado" and "Many of Colorado's senators". Reword to avoid repetition......?
• Schroeder and Polis image captions need full stops
• "Colorado was apportioned with two seats" => "Colorado was apportioned two seats"
• THat's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @ChrisTheDude, I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. Thanks as always for your prompt feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• In the "2003–2023: 7 seats" table, the header cells "1st" through "7th" need to have "scope=col". Please check the other tables for this issue too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @MPGuy2824, thanks for your feedback, as always. I've fixed this issue where it occurred. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review and general comments

I'll look at sources and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm not too familiar with all the sources, so give me a little time to investigate. No immediate red flags, though.

• Update: All sources appear to be appropriate. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Newspaper citations are inconsistent, e.g. whether publisher and/or location are specified. Is there a rationale for this (e.g. based on how well known the papers are?)
• New York Times citations are inconsistent, e.g.'"Congressman Vaile Dies in Automobile". The New York Times. New York, New York.' has the location but '"Lawrence Lewis, Congressman, Dies". The New York Times.' doesn't.
• In the Current U.S. representatives from Colorado table, what's the soure for "Incumbent since"?
• United States Senate- I think it would be better to have the refs for Henry M. Teller and Ken Salazar at the end of the sentence, as the sources jointly verify the whole sentence. Same for John F. Shafroth and Edwin C. Johnson - but feel free to point me to policy/precedent/consensus for the current positioning of the references.

General

• I would find it useful to have a bit more detail about the CPVI ratings in the Current delegation section (not too much, just a sentence or two), to help interpret "D+29", "D+4" etc.
• The Current U.S. representatives from Colorado table has "residence" but the source has hometown. Are these equivalent in American English? (To me, a hometown is where one was born or is from, not necessarily the current residence.)

All in all, it's looking good, Staraction. I will have a further review for consistency of the citations, but it would be helpful to have your replies on the points above first. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose Hi, thanks for your review and apologies it took so long to respond! I believe I've fixed everything you've pointed out so far. (Note: my rationale is that if published originally online, I'm not including the city published for NYT. But I fixed all the other issues with that). Thanks again! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, Staraction. Just two tiny points more, I think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks again for your comments! I've added the publication location to the Schulte citation. I've removed locations from citations per the citation template instructions: "[Location:] generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place". Let me know if this causes any issues or if you see anything else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• There are two books cited; one has publication location and the other doesn't. I'd suggest adding it in to the Schulte citation.
• Is New York City a better link than New York, New York? The former seems to be prevalent on Wikipedia but I couldn't find any policy or guidance.

And finally...

• The language=en parameters seem to be redundant but they aren't doing any harm. Is the Schulte book really in language=en-gb though?
• I don't think we need website=Census.gov and publisher=United States Census Bureau but that's not enough to hold up a source review pass.
• I made a few minor tweaks including some suggested by scripts; please check these and revert any that are objectionable.

• Pass for source review. I haven't formally done any spot checks because each time I clicked through a link I found the relevant info supported. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - meets the FL criteria IMO. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Image Review

• File:Diana DeGette official photo (cropped).jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified here.
• File:Joe Neguse, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified here.
• File:Jason Crow, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be found in the archived link.
• File:TAYLOR, EDWARD T. REPRESENTATIVE LCCN2016861347 (cropped).jpg- Source mentions that the image is dated 'between 1905 and 1945'. In the image summary, the date mentioned is 1905.
• File:PatSchroeder.jpg- I think it'd be better to add link to specific page in source for reader's convenience.
• File:Jared Polis Official 2012.jpg- Source link broken, but can be found in the archived link.
• If you wish, you can add archived links for those images where source link is broken.
• All images have alt text.
• All images appropriately captioned.
• All images relevant to text. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Nitro Absynthe Thanks for your review and apologies it took so long to get back to you! I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. In particular, for all the images with images not found in source link as well as those where the image was in an archive, I've added an archive link on the Commons page. Please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Staraction, looks good to me. Support on images. Good work! Nitro Absynthe (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) [23].

---

1964 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As a follow up to my nomination of the 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, I decided I wanted to complete a Summer Olympics medal table as well. It's based on other Summer Olympics medal tables that have also been promoted to featured list status, as well as the feedback provided at the other Summer Olympics medal table nomination. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Arconning

• "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina.
• "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual".
• "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."?
• The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete.
• Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany".

Here are my comments, ping me once you're done! Arconning (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• "With 18 total Olympic medals, Latynin", should be Latynina. – D'oh... fixed.
• "for most Olympic medals," could be reworded as "for the most Olympic medals for an individual". – Ehhh, I felt it was implied, but I've tweaked it.
• "She also became, and still is, the record holder for most gold and total Olympic medals by a female athlete.", would this need an "As of,..."? – Do we? I would think that's only really necessary if there's frequent changes in the rankings. I don't love the idea of this having to be updated every year, as opposed to being updated as necessary.
• The caption in the image should probably specify "at these games", as "competing athlete" could probably sound like an active athlete. – I personally don't read it this way. I think it's clear enough based on the context of "... at the 1964 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete"
• Could add a footnote explaining "United Team of Germany". – Done.

I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Thank you so much for the review @Arconning! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, good luck! Arconning (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

The only thing I can suggest is changing "over Taiwan's (Republic of China) participation" to "over the participation of Taiwan (Republic of China)", which just seems to read a bit more elegantly to me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Chris, an IP actually added the names in brackets, which I felt were unnecessary and also interrupted the flow. I've also implemented your wording, which is definitely more elegant. Thank you very much for taking a look and providing feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

Source review - pass

• The sources all look reliable for the purposes they are used and the references are filled out with the necessary details. Spotchecks not done but I could upon request.

Image review - pass

• The source link for the file works, and since it ought to have been taken in 1964 (over 60 years ago), the copyright information at the file page applies and makes sense.

Overall, support on those and the prose as well. No issues there.--NØ 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

* "relating to the history of the Green Bay Packers, an American football in the National Football League (NFL)". Is this meant to say an American football team

• There is a stray curly bracket in the table "17}"

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: I think this was meant as a reply to another nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, now that's embarrassing. Yep this was meant for Packers Heritage Trail. I had both nomination pages open and didn't look at the title before adding my comments. I have stricken my comments. Now I'll definitely come back and review this list too. Again sorry for the confusion. -- EN-Jungwon 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon: No worries at all! I happened to have reviewed the exact same list and knew exactly what you were talking about, gave me a good laugh :P Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 26 the title has changed

Reference formatting is consistent. Link checker shows no issues. -- EN-Jungwon 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @EN-Jungwon: Sorry for the delay in responding. I've updated the title of the article, and updated the date of the archive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Support -- EN-Jungwon 23:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [24].

---

United States presidential elections in Wyoming

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because that has fulfill the condition 金色黎明 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Link Roosevelt in the lead
• "Ref" column header should be "Refs" as there are multiple refs on every row
• "For the purpose of this list, other candidates are defined as those who finished in third place in the state" - did nobody at all finish third in 1944, 1960, etc?
• Note b is missing the word "the" before "ballot" and also needs a full stop
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your guidance! Upon investigating the source, I have confirmed that only two candidates received votes in the elections of 1944, 1956, 1960, and 1964.--金色黎明 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Bergland's results in 1984 are erroneous: 12,000 votes would be more than 6% of that election. Presidential elections, 1789–1996 gives his vote total as 2,357.
• The sources are well formatted. For consistency's sake, I'd put Menendez 2005 into an SFN; I know you only cite it once, but that way all the books will be in the works cited section.
• Additionally, this is the only one you have a location for; I'd remove it or add locations to the other books.
• Wikilink Walter Dean Burnham in the citation.

That's all from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice, I have addressed all the mentioned issues.--金色黎明 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Wyoming was the first place in America to grant women the right to vote, in 1869, well before it joined the Union in 1890." --> "Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869, prior to joining the Union, and was the first place in America to do so." It already states that Wyoming joined the union in 1890 the sentence prior. Feel free to modify this sentence as you see fit as my prose usually isn't the best either but it felt a little clunky to read.

That's it! Well done & thanks for your work. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• • @Staraction:Thanks for your advice, I have revised this sentence--金色黎明 (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

    Looks good, support on prose! Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The "Winner", "Runner-up" and "Other candidate" header cells need to have colgroup as their scope.
• There is no need to add "text-align:left;" for the party color cell since it has no text. This can be removed from all of those cells.
• Given the note, you could just replace "Other candidate" with "Third-place candidate". Please ping me when these issues are fixed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824:Thanks for your advice, I have modified according to your suggestion. 金色黎明 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824:, i have modified ---金色黎明 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support on accessibility and prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Zambian parliamentary constituencies

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The 4th nomination in the constituency series. I've improved the lead, added a history section, and converted the list into a table with more information than was present before. I've modelled it on similar FLs like Tripura and Mizoram. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• How are the constituencies formed? Why is there an enormous difference in size among them? Does Zambia have governance and representation issues because of this severe malapportionment?
• Would it make sense to list the Districts of Zambia covered in addition to the Province they're in?
• Why does Template:Zambian constituencies have a Sinjembela listed?
• I know this is a straightforward topic that might not have a ton of information, but the lead is still quite short and the table is just from a single source. Is there anything else that can be added to make this the best of Wikipedia? Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Reywas92, question: I am slightly new, but would that make it fail WP:CFORK? sorry if this is stupid 48JCL public (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it's a cfork, but List of members of the National Assembly of Zambia (2021–2026) already has the names of constituencies, along with the incumbents, so there's some duplication there. This should have enough info to justify a separate page and a gold star. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Formation of constituencies: Added info to the lead.
  • I've added a district column to the table.
  • Sinjembela is a former constituency. Since it would pass NGEO, I didn't remove it from the template, but moved it to its own section.
  • I have an explanation for the disparity in constituencies, but it would be WP:OR, so I'm not adding it to the article. I'll provide my explanation here for folks who might be interested: The rule is that a constituency cannot cover more than a district. This wouldn't be a problem if there were 4 or 5 times the number of constituencies as districts, but Zambia has 116 districts and 156 constituencies. The highly populated districts cannot be divided into a lot of constituencies because of this. This was interesting to find out, so thanks for asking the question. I tried to look for studies about the disparity in constituency size, but came up with nothing, unfortunately.
  • If there is any other information that you or someone else can think of that is relevant to the list, I'm happy to do the research and add to the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Reywas92: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Alt-text for File:Zambia National Assembly Building.jpg is missing.
• Infobox could be expanded. Information like voting system and number of seats, which are mentioned in Tripura and Mizoram, could be included here as well.
• Ref 1 and Ref 10 (|archive-date=) follows ymd date format, while the rest of the citations follow dmy date format. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Fixed all of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nitro Absynthe: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Lapadite

• The content in the [a] note should be cited.
• As this is an international topic, the article should include the corresponding templates for the English variety and date format used. Lapadite (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lapadite: Done both. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Staraction's comments

• "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka and" -> "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and"
• "the Vice President, the Speaker and one of the deputy speakers" -> "the Vice President, the Speaker, and one of the deputy speakers" (this one is optional considering MOS:OXFORD
• Perhaps add alt text to the seal of Zambia within the Politics of Zambia template?
• Add caption to infobox image - what is that building?
• Link first-past-the-post, President in body

That's it from me. Nice work, @MPGuy2824 Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. Well done. Staraction (talk | contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007 comments

• I know this is a pain, but the information in the "Name" column being centered while the "Province" and "District" columns are left-align isn't consistent. Choose one or the other.
• I feel like the image order is weird. I would recommend the Infobox and {{Politics of Zambia}} be place d consecutively in the lead, and then move the Location of Zambia and the Constituencies image to the "List" section
• On that topic, "List" seems like a weird section title. Why not just "Constituencies"?
• The National Assembly of Zambia is the unicameral legislature of Zambia., the duplication of "Zambia" sounds bad. I think this is fine: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia.
• On that note, it would be nice to have some context for the country. Something like: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. (note, that text is from Zambia).
• Of them, 156 are elected I think Of those is the appropriate term here.
• every census, by the comma isn't needed.

That's what I got, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Fixed all. The country's locator map was added to give some geographical context to the reader, but I think duplication in the text is useful. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Image review

Excellent work.

• Zambia National Assembly Building.jpg has an appropriate CC tag and review.
• Coat of arms of Zambia.svg has an appropriate PD tag.
• Location Zambia AU Africa.svg has an appropriate PD tag. Following the comments above from Gonzo_fan2007, would be it be possible to locate this near the mention of Zambia's location?
• Zambian National Assembly constituencies.svg has an appropriate PD tag. The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. If that would be too complicated, would be separate maps for each province showing the locations of the constituencies be an alternative?
• All images have ALT text (as noted by Nitro Absynthe above).
• Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? simongraham (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've moved the Zambia locator map to just below the Infobox. Also moved the "Politics of Zambia" sidebar template to a much lower section of the page.
• The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. I'll see if there is enough information to correctly add numbering to the image. Might take a few days.
• Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? I did a cursory search for a few constituencies and there aren't images that would represent the constituency well. Assuming that the above numbering works out, I could use that to create a new image that would just show only the constituencies of a particular state and add that to the table. Doing the same thing for each state would reduce the starkness of the table. I'll ping you when these are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Simongraham: I've added numbers to the constituency map and the table. This should work as a key. See if you approve of my other idea of using state-wise subsets of this map to show in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: That sounds reasonable to me. It would be interesting to see if this also resolves another issue. Currently, I feel that the map may be too small for many screens, so it may be helpful, given the constraints of MOS:IMGSIZE, to make it larger. simongraham (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and it is presided over by a Speaker and two deputy Speakers. The term of the assembly is five years, unless it is dissolved earlier." - none of this is sourced
• First three columns of the table are unsourced i.e. what's the source that the 156 constituency names listed here are the 156 constituencies that exist and what's the source that each is in the province and district listed?
• Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd, would it not make more sense to order by constituency? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude:

  • First paragraph of lead was unsourced - I've added a ref and reused refs from elsewhere. I've also tweaked the prose a bit. Please point out any issues that you notice.
  • First three columns of the table are unsourced I've moved refs to the table caption to make it clear that they cover the whole table, and not just the number of electors column.
  • Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd - This is how the election commission orders them. Per simongraham's comment above, I've added the numbering to the map and the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [26].

---

List of Chivas USA seasons

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm following up my previous MLS featured lists (List of New England Revolution seasons, List of New England Revolution managers) with a list about the defunct club Chivas USA. This poorly-run team existed for ten unsuccessful seasons. I've created and improved this list, and believe it now meets the Featured List criteria. Brindille1 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333

• Verification check (Table):
  • As Chivas competed from 2005-2014, the page range for the conference & overall positions should be 41-50, not 32-59.
  • For 2009, they were overall 5th not 6th. As they were tied with Chicago in points, they'd be ranked higher as they had more wins per MLS.
• Chivas's USOC appearances is on page 179, not 178.
  • I see instances of both R3 (2006) and Round of 16 for the USOC. Only one of these should be used for consistency. MLS uses third round instead of Round of 16. Looking at links like 2006 U.S. Open Cup, third round is used. I think all of Ro16 should be switched to R3.
  • 2005 USOC was R4.
  • 2013 USOC was also R4.
• 2005 would need a source to show Chivas did not enter any Continental competitions, instead of not qualifying.
• The attendance is blank at FBRef. It used to be there per Google search. However, there is no archived copy of the Chivas Stats page at FBref. I also checked individual seasons at FBref and the attendance is blank, such as 2005.
• 2008 top goalscorer needs the 2008 FBRef source to show Razov was tied for first. The overall Chivas source at FBRef only shows Eskandarian and Kljestan due to lack of space.
• Needs a source for the nationalities of the top goalscorers. Otherwise, the flags can be removed.

• Verification check (Prose):
  • "Chivas USA participated in the annual U.S. Open Cup tournament organized by the United States Soccer Federation" - ESPN doesn't specifically mention Chivas but verifies the rest of the sentence. MLS 2024 could be reused here to show Chivas's participation while keeping the ESPN source for the rest of the sentence.
  • "MLS regular season typically runs from February to October" - MLS doesn't say the regular season doesn't alway ends in October. Don't think typically is needed here.
  • " which was a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup" - is a postseason tournament (as it's still being held per the 2023 MLS + Washington Post sources)
  • "annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean." - not seeing the bolded part in Los Angeles Daily News for Champions League. Maybe rephrase to between teams.
  • "a new expansion team in Los Angeles was announced, which eventually became Los Angeles FC." - needs a bit of trimming to avoid copying/close paraphrasing as the sentence looks similar to The Athletic.

• Citations comments:
  • The Athletic needs an access-date.
  • Typos in publication names: The New York Time, Los Angelas Daily News. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 Thank you for the very thorough review. I've updated the article to fix the issues you've raised, with a couple notes:

  - "For 2009, they were overall 5th not 6th". The tie-breakers were different in 09, I've added a better citation for overall standings which should clarify any ambiguities

  - For R3 vs R16, I refer to these rounds the way they're referred to in the source. Renaming R16 to R3 would be incorrect, as the R16 isn't always the third round (see 2013 where the fourth round is the round of 16).

  - For the 2005 continental competition, I switched this to a "DNQ". I've not found a source indicating that the team could've entered the tournament but chose not to. Brindille1 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  The above points have been resolved apart from the following:

  • In regards to Round 3, MLS page 179 only uses Round 3. Therefore, any usages of Round of 16 for the USOC need extra sources.
  • 2012 attendance is linking to the wrong source. Should be this one.
  • I just noticed that Soccerway doesn't verify that Ante Razov was the top overall goalscorer across all seasons with 31 goals. The link only provides details for the individual season.
  • "announced a new expansion team that would play in Los Angeles, which would eventually become Los Angeles FC" - still needs reworking to pass WP:LIMITED.

  MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 I've addressed these issues. For the Soccerway source, it contains a list of all league goals by player for each Chivas season- concluding the total number of goals falls under WP:CALC. Brindille1 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  • The expansion sentence still resembles The Athletic source. Here's a suggestion on rewriting: Chivas was replaced by Los Angeles FC that year as an expansion team.
  • FBRef and Soccerway disagree with the number of goals for Razov. However, I found that MLS states he was the top goalscorer with 30.

  MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 Reworded that sentence. Re: Razov's goals, good find. Soccerway seems to be wrong here. I've cited MLS's pages instead which (a) show he's the all-time leading scorer for the club and (b) show that he has 30 regular-season goals. Brindille1 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support - Thank you for the fixes, especially with the rewording of that one sentence. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Tiny lead image could be made much larger. I suggest upright=1.4
• "from 2005 until folding after the 2014 season" => "from 2005 until it folded after the 2014 season"
• "which was a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup" => "a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup"
• "which is an annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America" => "an annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America"
• "The club's 2014 season set a record-low attendance for the league" => "The club's 2014 season set a record-low attendance level for the league"
• "It was named the Champions' Cup until 2008" - this needs a full stop.
• Looks a but odd to have Razov centred in the total row when all the other goalscorers are left-aligned
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review. I've updated the article accordingly. Brindille1 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

• USOC should use {{abbrlink}}.
• I have some concerns about the key:
  • First off, "MLS", "CCL" and "SL" don't appear in the table at all. They should be removed from the key, as not relevant (specifically, instead of using the acronyms you spelt them out in the table).
  • Consider using the horizontal key found in NFL seasons lists for position placing (e.g. List of Green Bay Packers seasons)
  • In the key to cup record, most of those aren't found in the table (I know they could possibly be in the future), but why not just use {{abbr}} and {{abbrlink}} for all these? You already use these templates in the table for some abbreviations, why not these?
• All of these accomplish something super beneficial to the reader: they get rid of a bunch superfluous info that is (on my screen) almost the same length as the table (the key info the reader wants).
• You use {{sfnp}} but then have these citations grouped in the same section as other direct citations. Recommend splitting "References" into sub-sections. An example of this can be found at List of Green Bay Packers team records.

Brindille1, please ping me when you have responded. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hm, looks like @Brindille1 last edited on July 30th. Hopefully they'll be back to address the feedback provided here soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I plan on responding to feedback, but my laptop has died and I am waiting on my replacement which will arrive in a few days. Apologies for the delay. Brindille1 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I've updated the list according to your feedback. The only item I did not address directly was the suggestion of the horizontal key. However, I reformatted the columns in the "Key" section, and I think this makes better use of the space. Thanks for the feedback and apologies for the delay in my response! Brindille1 (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Support looks good to me! Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [27].

---

List of historic places in Upper Hutt

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, hey, forgot to do one of these for a while. Here's another one for Heritage New Zealand's registry of historic sites; still got a long way to go to get through all of these! Upper Hutt is a small commuter town outside Wellington, but it has a suprising amount of cool historic architecture, including a number of fashionable houses by James Chapman-Taylor, one of New Zealand's most notable architects. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Alavense

• The table needs a caption.
  • It has one, no? - G
• I don't think the sticky header is working.
  • I realized I don't really need the sticky header for this one, since it's a fairly short list. - G
• No issues with the prose.
• Wouldn't it be better to use a <br> between "List" and "number"? There seems to be an excessive gap in between.
  • Ooh good point. Fixed. - G
• In the source, it reads "Historic area". Why capitalize the "a" in the text and in the table?
  • That's a good point, decapitalised. - G
• In the caption of the first image, again: is it necessary to capitalize "Historic Place"?
  • Ditto. - G
• There's no reference for Remutaka Incline Rail Trail.
  • Oops. Fixed. - G

That's all I saw. Nice and thorough work, Generalissima. Alavense (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Alavense: Fixed! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, Generalissima. "Upper Hutt City is a city" reads a bit redundant. I think "Upper Hutt is a city" would be better. Thanks for your edits. Alavense (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Alavense Ah, good point! fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt responses, Generalissima. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• " jail, private residence, and scouting center" - given that we are dealing with a Commonwealth country, I think the last word should be spelt "centre"
  • Oop, yep. - G
• "although plaster and jarrah timber was also heavily used" => "although plaster and jarrah timber were also heavily used"
  • Fixed. - G
• "the area became a mobilization camp" => "the area became a mobilisation camp"
  • Fixed. - G
• "A veterinary center constructed " => "A veterinary centre constructed "
  • Fixed. - G
• "It served as the main veterinary research center" => "It served as the main veterinary research centre"
  • Fixed. - G
• "Now owned and managed by the Golder's Homestead Museum Society." => "It is now owned and managed by the Golder's Homestead Museum Society."
  • Fixed. - G
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much, fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Let's Wikilink New Zealand in the lead
• Downcase "(Former)" in the name column
• Downcase "(Library)" in the name column
• Trentham isn't linked in the location column for the St John's Church entry, link it there for consistency
• Golder's House Food Store – Link Upper Hutt in the location column for consistency

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Fixed! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [28].

---

List of Green Bay Packers Associated Press All-Pro selections

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a new list for FLC: List of Green Bay Packers Associated Press All-Pro selections! This list follows the same format as List of Green Bay Packers Pro Bowl selections. As always, happy to resolve any issues in a timely fashion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The All-Pro recognition is more prestigious" - suggest "The All-Pro recognition is considered more prestigious"
• "The AP All-Pro Team includes a first-team and second-team" - don't need those hyphens
• "Pro Football Hall of Famer Don Hutson in in 1940" - two things here. Firstly, he wasn't a Hall of Famer in 1940, secondly the word "in" is repeated
• "The most recent AP All-Pro selection for the Packers was kick returner Keisean Nixon for 2023 AP All-Pro Team" => "The most recent AP All-Pro selection for the Packers was kick returner Keisean Nixon for the 2023 AP All-Pro Team"
• "Don Hutson's six AP All-Pro selections were all on the first-team." - lose the hyphen again
• Note a: "The position which the player was selected as an All-Pro." => "The position for which the player was selected as an All-Pro."
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisTheDude, I think I have addressed all your comments here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable (note that Gonzo follows a different format, which I am trying to adhere to, as opposed to my standard format)
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Various news agencies identified All-Pro teams dating back to... – Should we consider something like "selected" as opposed to identified? It also contextually may make more sense.
• This isn't a hard line for me, but I believe, in regards to ref 14, AP News would be a more appropriate link. I recognize Associated Press News is appropriate, but it was my understanding that that sect of the AP typically goes by "AP News".

That's all I've got. Good stuff! Please do ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hey man im josh! I made the necessary changes. I must have copied that AP link from somewhere else, since it didn't really match my typical reference formatting. I changed it to website = APNews.com. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• For the years, where there are more than one players, the header cell's scope should be rowgroup. e.g. 1941.
• In the "Most selections" table, the "All-Pros" and "Team" cells in the header should have the colgroup scope. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MPGuy2824, I think I got them all fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion on prose and table accessibility.

I'd appreciate a comment at my FL nom, if you have the time and inclination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [29].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1970

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's power on into the '70s in the history of Billboard's "music for the moms and dads rather than the kids" chart. In this particular year, the Beatles topped this chart for the first time just in time to split up, and a young woman with the voice of an angel and her brother began to establish themselves as one of the pre-eminent acts of all time in this sort of music. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and very swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images properly sourced & licensed
• All images captioned properly
• All images relevant to the text
• All images have alt text

Thanks for your wonderful work as always! Support on images and prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Ref 16 is missing an archive link.

That's all I could find. -- EN-Jungwon 01:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• • @EN-Jungwon: - I ran the bot again but for some reason it refused to archive that link..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    I went ahead and added it manually. Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Two instances of "Simon and Garfunkel" should be "Simon & Garfunkel", based on the source and based on the article itself
• "Everything is Beautiful" in the lead, and in the image caption, should be capitalized to "Everything Is Beautiful", based on the target and for consistency with the table

That's literally it. Almost got me this time Chris, but I found something! Good stuff as always, support because I've interacted with you enough to confident you'll make the fix when you see this. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - thanks, I fixed those two points -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• "and in the same week moved in the top spot on Billboard's pop music chart" - Does "music" need to be part of the text? Feel like "Billboard's pop chart" gets the point across
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Thomas and Jones returned to number one later in the year with "I Just Can't Help Believing" and "Daughter of Darkness" respectively, and were two of the four acts to achieve two Easy Listening number ones in 1970." - Probably there should be a comma before "respectively"
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• "Let It Be" also topped the Hot 100, as did "Bridge over Troubled Water" by Simon & Garfunkel, and "Everything Is Beautiful" by Ray Stevens." - Second comma is not necessary
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late review; been busy doing more on the content side lately.--NØ 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• @MaranoFan: - no need to apologise, I really appreciate the review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support--NØ 13:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [30].

---

Crystal Castles discography

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the discography of the Canadian electronic duo Crystal Castles, which has quite a cult following. This is my first ever FLC, so I believe there will be some mistakes, but I'll do my best to address them in the course of this nomination. Skyshiftertalk 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Support on prose & images (relevant to text, captioned, properly licensed, alt text present). Well-written & comprehensible to me. Only thing - maybe elaborate a bit on the abuse allegations? I had to dig a little more to understand those and it left a little more to be desired. Otherwise, great work and well done! Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! So that's the main thing I'm unsure about, considering WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I believe that it's relevant to cite the allegations, as that's why Glass left the band and why it is on hiatus. It's definitely important enough to be cited here. However, because of these policies I mentioned, I think going into detail would be too much. Skyshiftertalk 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• It reads a bit weirdly to say things charted in "Scotland and the United Kingdom" given that Scotland is part of the UK. It would be like saying a song charted in "Texas and the United States". But I can't think of a way round this........
  • I'd say it makes sense, as Scotland and the UK have their respective national charts. I understand how it could be confusing, but like, it's not wrong..
• "Crystal Castles later released a cover of that album's "Not in Love"" - it's not a cover because it was their own song to begin with. You can only cover someone else's song. "Re-recording" would be the appropriate description.
  • Fixed
• "charting in multiple countries and being certified gold by Music Canada." => "which charted in multiple countries and was certified gold by Music Canada."
  • Fixed
• "The band has been on hiatus since Glass' abuse allegations against Kath in 2017" - appreciate you don't want to elaborate on this but the choice of wording makes it sound like the allegations have already been mentioned when they haven't. Suggest changing to "The band has been on hiatus since Glass made allegations of abuse against Kath in 2017"
  • Fixed
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 21:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

One review coming up. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation numbers from this revision. Let's do this!

• Neither of the references after "... allegations of abuse against Kath in 2017." verify that the band is on hiatus.
  • Changed to "inactive", which I guess is factual due to the band not releasing or saying anything since then. Apparently there are no sources explicitly saying that the band has not done anything since then, which kinda sucks, because it is pretty obvious.

    Yeah, it can be hard to prove a negative with things like this. Good change; it addresses my concern. —TS

• Might be worth a mention in the prose that the 2010 album was re-released as II and/or also known with the number in the title.
  • Done
  • Also, what a coincidence that I was listening to American Football, who also have multiple eponymous albums, while writing this up! —TS
    • Good taste!
• What's the distinction being drawn between the "versus" remixes and the other ones? That stylization was used in electronic music circles back in the day to denote collaborations or remixes, but it doesn't seem to impart much information here.
  • I think it's valid to mention how they were credited when there's a difference. Not all of their remixes from that era are like this, such as "Atlantis to Interzone", which is just "Crystal Castles Remix".
• Lists and tables are exempt from MOS:REPEATLINK, so I would encourage linking things like the singles and featured performers wherever they appear, which is generally considered beneficial for readers.
  • Done
• Change the sub-sections in § Notes to use true headers per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD.
  • Done
• In note (lowercase) a: Saying these singles are "sometimes referred to as EPs" is vague and opaque. Why is this the case? Which other songs featured on these EPs? Please add sources as necessary. It would also be nice to expand the initialism since we're in a footnote.
  • Added sources and information
• Are the "To access ..." notes in citations 7 and 8 necessary? It's not exactly common practice to include navigational tips for the website in references.
  • I think information like this is present in some chart references from {{Album chart}} and {{Single chart}}.
• Any reason why links to Ultratop are piped as "ultratop.be"?
  • Changed
• I suppose the URLs are inevitable in citations 9 and 10, but "irishcharts.com" should be "irish-charts.com". I would also format them with the |website= parameter and add |publisher=Hung Medien.
  • Done
• There seems to be more citations in title case than sentence case, so so I would make them all consistent to that. This script might be able to help.
  • Good script! But other than two sources that I had forgotten, I've already made them sentence case, and all of them should be now. You might be referring to things like "Official Scottish Singles Chart Top 100", but I'd say these are proper names.
• In citation 19: remove the name of the website from the title.
  • Done
• I don't think the exact stylization of the YouTube channel names are necessary, and would just format them with their proper names.
  • Done

That's all I've got for now; I might be back with more comments after another read through. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: All responded! Skyshiftertalk 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Now working from this revision.

• No further suggestions on the citation formatting, and the sources are all reliable enough to verify their claims.
• Assuming good faith for offline sources.
• Since this is the nominator's first FLC, I conducted some spot-checks. Citations 1–5, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 55–57 revealed no issues.
• Citation 18 doesn't verify the Flemish Heatseekers chart placement.
  • It's on the archive; set "url-status" to "dead".
• Several links in citation 24, such as for "Air War" and "Courtship Dating" don't seem to verify their claims. "Baptism" is also listed with a peak at 87th, while the source claims 83rd.
  • I don't know why some of these links refer to 2002... I'll fix these links later. Corrected placement for "Baptism".
• Citation 11 doesn't verify the chart placement of "Baptism".
  • Removed
• "Sad Eyes" is listed at 139th, while citation 39 claims 89th.
  • Fixed

I plan to do a more in-depth check of the sources, but I will have to oppose at the moment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Added a bit more. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Responded; some changes pending. Skyshiftertalk 22:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: all fixed. Skyshiftertalk 00:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Seen; thanks! Oppose struck, but I will be doing another full pass of the article on account of the number of errors I identified the first time around. I'm sure you're doing so already, but I'd ask that you do the same to make sure there are no further hiccups in the review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No further issues that I can find, so I'm going to go ahead and support conditional on the implementation of MPGuy's suggestions below. I would encourage another reviewer to check my work if they have the time to make sure nothing gets missed. Good luck with the rest of this candidacy, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. This is for the "Extended plays" and "Music videos" tables. Additionally, the "Peak chart positions" header cell (in quite a few of the tables) needs to have "colgroup" as its scope.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. Please ping me when you fix these issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: done! Skyshiftertalk 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion based on prose and table accessibility. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) [31].

---

1956 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A short list compared to my other FLC, this is a list about the medals earned by nations that competed at the 1956 Winter Olympics. Waiting for some comments, and etc etc! Arconning (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• In the image caption, I believe there is a word missing in "Toni Sailer of Austria won the gold medals at the 1956 Winter Olympics"
• "Overall, athletes from 13 nations received one medal" => "Overall, athletes from 13 nations received at least one medal" (unless literally every medal winner only won one)
• "At their debut, athletes from the Soviet Union won" => "At their first Winter Olympics, athletes from the Soviet Union won"
• "The Soviet Union's team won their nation's first Olympic gold medal" - they'd never won a gold in the summer? I think this sentence and the one after it are confusing as it's unclear if you mean these countries won their first Winter Olympic medals specifically or they won their first Olympic medals period and it just happened to occur at the winter games
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Pinging again. :) Arconning (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 verification/copyvio check

Lead

• "A total of 821 athletes from 32 nations participated in 24 events in 4 sports across 8 disciplines." - The sentence needs to be rewritten a bit to pass WP:LIMITED as it's too similar to the Olympics flying start source in terms of word order.
• The number of athletes differs between the sources. Olympics factsheet says 821. However, Olympics flying start says 923 total but the math doesn't add up there as 132+751=883. Which of these sources is correct?
• "while athletes from Finland came third with 3 gold medals and 7 medals overall." - The CBC source sorts the countries by the total number of medals, not gold medals. Therefore, third would be Sweden with 10 overall and 2 gold medals.
• "won their nation's first Winter Olympic gold medal and Winter Olympic medal of any color" - the sentence sounds like first Winter Olympic medal ever was a gold medal. However, this isn't the case as the first Winter Olympic medal for Soviet Union was bronze. Therefore, the sentence could be rewritten to something like "won their nation's first Winter Olympic medals in every color"
• "all three gold medals available in the men's alpine skiing events" - needs a bit rewording to avoid similar phrasing with The Los Angeles Times.
• "winning four medals with one gold, two silvers, and one bronze." - extra source needed here as CBC does not specify which medals Jernberg won, only that he won 4.

Medal table section

• "where a nation is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee (NOC)" - This part can be removed as Sergeyev does not mention a NOC.
• "The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals." - This sentence was added in 2004, while Sergeyev's source is from 2014. Template:Backwards copy should be added to the talk page so this article doesn't get flagged as a copyvio of Sergeyev.
• Is the entire 30+ pages being used for the Contemporary European History source to verify "hesitation by the International Olympic Committee to recognize both National Olympic Committees formed by each nation"? If not, specific page/pages are needed instead.
• Also, it should be |issue=4 not |edition=4 for Contemporary European History. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 I've removed the Olympics flying start source, I've also changed the medal table header. For the third comment, I don't see how it is an issue to use the CBC source as the article uses the IOC's method of arranging medal tables, it's sourcing the medal count for the nations? Other than that, I believe I'm done with the rest of your comments. :) Arconning (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  In regards to CBC, I'm confused in the wording of sentences it is cited for. The first sentence starts out with "athletes from the Soviet Union won the most medals overall". Therefore, I'd assume that the next sentence would follow the same format: Austria 2nd with 11 medals (4 gold) and Sweden 3rd with 10 medals (2 gold). If the sentences are supposed to be ordered as gold first then total, then I think the Soviet Union part could be reordered with 7 gold medals first then 16 total medals. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 I have done this. Arconning (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a few more points left:

  • "where a nation is an entity represented by a NOC." - neither source mentions a NOC. This quoted part could be removed.
  • The first Unified team was at the 1956 Winter Olympics, not 1952 Summer Olympics. Per Olympia, only the FRG competed in 1952 even though "titularly a combined German team".
  • "and the hesitation by the International Olympic Committee to recognize both National Olympic Committees" - This isn't exactly correct. FRG was recognized in 1950 while GDR was recognized in 1955 per Olympia. This would need rewritten as they started to compete as an Unified team after both NOCs were recognized.

  MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 Done. Arconning (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Still needs correction on when the first Unified Team competed per above.
  • "National Olympic Committee of the GDR (East Germany) would be recognized if both nations competed in the same team at the Olympics" - Might need a little bit of rewording with the bolded part to pass WP:LIMITED

  MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrLinkinPark333 Done. :) Arconning (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Support - thank you for the changes. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 2 – It should be "Athletes, Medals & Results"
• Ref 4 – It's often annoying for me to tell whether I should be using CBC or CBC Sports, but I think CBC Sports is a better choice for this ref, given the author is listed as CBC Sports
• Ref 11 – The article requires a subscription or free trial in order to view the rest of the article. Please add the url-access parameter to the ref and specify it
• Ref 12 – Title in reference doesn't match the title on the page or the title when the page's tab is hovered over. Seems to have had some slight editorialization.

That's what I've got. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk)

• Hey man im josh I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh Pinging again. :) Arconning (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [32].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Argentina

Nominator(s): Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Argentina has 12 WHS, including the Inca roads, Iguazú falls, and old Jesuit missions. Standard style. As the list for Sudan is already seeing support, I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• wikilink "calves".
• "The missions have different layouts and are in different states of conservation," End the sentence here.
• "around the spectacular Iguazu Falls" - Use a number (length/height/other) instead of "spectacular".
• "On the Brazilian side".
• "created by the hunter-gatherer communities." Remove "the".
• "In additional to" -> "In addition to"
• "The oldest art in the cave dates to the 10th millennium BP, while the youngest traces of inhabitants at the site were dated to around 700 CE." Since you are using an actual date in the end, I would suggest that the "10th millenium BP" be converted to "8th millenium BCE".
• "It is a breeding ground for the southern right whale and the conservation efforts have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
• "valley by the hunter-gatherer communities and early farmers," - Remove "the"
• "as movements of messengers,"
• "Clandestine Centre of Detention, Torture, and Extermination." - no need to capitalize any of those since it isn't part of the name.
• "and then by communities that engaged in agriculture"
• "of a 100 million years old"
• That's all that i got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  "served as the clandestine" to "served as a clandestine" - unless you are sure that there was only one.

  Support in advance, since the above is a minor point which I'm sure you'll fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed that as well. Thanks! Tone 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "at the 5th session of World Heritage Committee" => "at the 5th session of the World Heritage Committee"
• "and the works of Le Corbusier with six coutries" - last word is spelt incorrectly
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, that was easy :) Tone 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

AK

• "Argentina accepted" I'd use ratified.
• "Argentina, and a further" Comma unnecessary.
• "ESMA Museum, in 2023" Comma unnecessary.
• "missions are listed as this World Heritage Site" to "missions are included in this World Heritage Site"
• "Iguazu Falls, spanning over" to "Iguazu Falls, which span over"
• "and the...widely-hunted species" to "; conservation efforts in the peninsula have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
• "245-208" en-dash.
• "include the early dinosaurs, such as the Eoraptor" to "include early dinosaurs such as Eoraptor"
• "plant species were identified" to "plant species have been identified"
• "unique insight into the life in the Triassic" to "unique insight into the life of the Triassic"
• "South America, that can" Comma unnecessary.
• "show only little erosion." either "show little erosion" or "show only a little erosion."
• "Ground sloths are a particular group represented." to "Ground sloths, in particular, are a well-represented group."
• "by the Russian Jews" "the" is unnecessary.
• 'literally "river of paintings"' Should be right after Pinturas River.
• That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I fixed those that I agree with, I think the others are fine ;) I've had ratified in some previous lists but reviewers preferred accepted, so I'm using that one now. Tone 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. AryKun (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Archive ref 18
• Ref 17 is showing a blank page for me. If that's the case then change the url status to dead.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, 17 was the tentative site which is now obsolete. I left it on the list back then because the new page has not been updated yet. Thanks for checking! Tone 09:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Good stuff. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [33].

---

List of Taylor Swift live performances

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This list covers the live performances of Taylor Swift, who has recently become the first artist to headline a $1 billion-grossing tour. Kudos to Medxvo for assisting with removing NONRS. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would this still qualify for deletion to quality despite that the person who nominated it for deletion was the FL nominator? 48JCL TALK 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD was keep so I really don't see the issue. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Swift's sixth studio album, Reputation (2017), was supported by negligible television performances -- suggest an alternative wording for negligible, or perhaps since she did little TV performances, you can lead into the Reputation tour directly.
• It is the first concert tour in history to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue. -- maybe some wording here can be piped to List of highest-grossing concert tours, since it is a notable record and one she currently tops.
• In the "Concert tours" table, I don't think we need to link the countries/territories (per MOS:OL)
• In the reference column for all your tables, I would update the abbreviation to "Ref(s)" since it is written as "Reference(s)" when hovered.
• Great to see this is finally on FLC. Nice work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Pass

• Image has alt text
• Image appropriately licensed
• Image has succinct caption and relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pseud 14: I've addressed all of your comments except the links to countries. I think while it makes sense to not link "common" countries like U.S., England... there are also "lesser-known" ones like Wales, Northern Ireland... so I decide to link them all to avoid potential demographic biases. Ippantekina (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Maybe just a minor nitpick but not a deal-breaker. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• For the lead's first sentence, shouldn't it be (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift) rather than (The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift)? Something about the use of the determiner seems off to me, but I could be wrong though.

• This list and all other articles within the T.Swift WProject adhere to WP:FALSETITLE, which is not an official MOS but a very helpful guide. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am still not a fan of it, but I believe this falls under personal preference so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I switched it up a little. Ippantekina (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• For the lead's second sentence, I do not think "various" adds much and can be cut as the focus seems to be more on the different venues where she has performed.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance but I would use "television" rather than the acronym in this part (as well as on TV and radio). I would do the same for the "TV shows and specials" section heading.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• A link for opening act may be helpful.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Taylor Swift albums discography is linked twice in the lead.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The lead makes a point that The Red Tour was her last tour as a country artist, but it does not specify what genre she transitioned to after that for her subsequent tours.

• While I found no sources that described the 1989 Tour as a "pop tour", I added something about the genre shift. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt that the countries need to be linked in the tables as most readers would be familiar with these areas. This kind of thing is brought up in MOS:OVERLINK. Also, since the table is sortable, there are instances where the first time the country appears is not linked. I would limit the links more so to cities and more specific areas like that. I respectfully disagree with your above "potential demographic biases" argument.

• I responded above to Pseud14 who has the same concern. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• I did see that response, and your argument there does not convince me. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• While thinking this over further, this should not be a big deal since it was not a major concern for any of the other reviewers here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• The linking for the tables is inconsistent. The award shows, such as the American Music Awards, are linked in every instance, but the television shows, like Good Morning America, are only linked on the first instance. On top of that, since the table is sortable, readers may encounter an unlinked term before getting to the actual link. To account for that, I would think that everything would need to be linked. Other examples of this would be Rascal Flatts being only linked once in the "As opening act'" table or the song titles only being linked once.

• Awards shows are linked to the yearly ceremony and thus each link is different. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  It makes sense as WP:DL does say that duplicate links are allowed in tables. I'll implement this shortly! Ippantekina (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why is the performed songs portion blank for the University of Phoenix Stadium entry? I have the same question for the Country Radio Seminar entry later on.

• That is because the cited references do not include this information. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• For the One World: Together at Home part, I would include a note that it was done virtually and also include where she filmed her performance if it is known.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would be consistent with either using title case or not in the citation titles.

• Should be done now. Ippantekina (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 27 (here), Citation 28 (here), Citation 31 (here), Citation 32 (here), Citation 33 (here), Citation 35 (here), Citation 49 (here), Citation 138 (here), Citation 227 (here), Citation 255 (here), and Citation 265 (here). are no longer active. The CMT ones in general seem to have issues as most just redirect to the home page.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 55 (here) should specify that it is in Japanese.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would avoid putting words in all caps like in Citation 71 (here).

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• For Citation 79 (here), I would use the press release citation formatting instead.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 121 (here), Citation 123 (here), Citation 133 (here), Citation 154 (here), Citation 220 (here), Citation 247 (here), Citation 248 (here), and Citation 275 (here) are missing the authors. I would honestly check all of the citations without author credits for this. I also believe that Citation 275 should be Time not Time Magazine.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Citation 163 (here) is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Same for Citation 166 (here) and Citation 274 (here).

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• The archive for Citation 224 (here) does not support the information provided. Also, the song title should be in single quotation marks as it is presented in the citation title.
• Citation 231 (here) requires a subscription. That should be noted in the citation template. I would make sure any other instances of this are noted as well.

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I oppose this list for promotion, primarily because of errors in the citations. I have also noticed inconsistencies with how linking is handled in the tables, which would not be as big of an issue by itself. Apologies again, and I would be more than happy to revisit this review once my comments are addressed. You have always done great work so I hope that this does not come across as too harsh or anything overly negative. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Aoba47:, I believe your points are actionable and will act on them. In the meantime I've replied to some of your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. I believe I've addressed all points that you raised above :) Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to everything. It all looks good to me. My only remaining point is that the citation for the first Nova's Red Room performance does not support the songs. The archived citation (at least for me) goes to an overview of different articles on the site. I do see a link to an article about her performing "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" there, but that does not appear to be archived. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a replacement ref anywhere so I'll remove that until a reliable source is found... Ippantekina (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had a feeling that would be the case. I tried to either get access to a better archived version of the original source or to find a different citation, but I did not have any luck with either. Removing it would be the best option. I approach this kind of list as containing all of the notable live performances of a particular artist, rather than being an exhaustive list so since I think that it is okay that this performance does not make it due to a lack of a citation. I did not look through newspapers so maybe that would help, but I think this is the right choice for now.

Apologies for the long response, but I do support this FLC for promotion based on the prose and I have struck my oppose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I did look through Newspaper.com, ProQuest for potential news sources to no avail. I'll try to continue looking for a replacement ref anyways. Thanks so much for your constructive feedback :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just glad that I could help. Thank you for your patience with my review. Best of luck with finding a replacement reference. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments (ec with last editor)

• "She has additionally performed in various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events" - unless usage in US English is different, I would suggest this should be "She has additionally performed at various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events". Certainly in the variety of English spoken in my neck of the woods, one does not perform "in" a music festival. But, as I said, maybe US usage is different......?

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• "which supports all of the albums in Swift's discography." => "which supports all of the albums in her discography."

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• "to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue." - box office revenue surely, unless this is a US usage of which I am unaware

• "Boxscore" is actually a term used by Billboard [34] but I removed it altogether as it might be jargon-y. Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Tour names starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Any particular reason why the first three tables have the name of the event first and the dates second, and then suddenly it switches to the other way round?

• I followed other examples like List of Lady Gaga live performances, and if I rationalize that myself, each concert tour (the content of the first 3 tables) is a combination of various concerts and hence the tour names being listed first makes more sense; plus dates are presented in rage so including them first is confusing imo. Meanwhile other events (TV, radio, awards) are one-off events so it makes more sense to sort it chronologically by including the event date first. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Did she not perform any songs at "Trails West!" and some of the others, or is it just unknown what she performed? If the latter, I would suggest putting "unknown" or similar, as the dash honestly looks like it means "none"

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any value in that songs column being sortable given that it will only ever sort based on the first song listed?

• I can think of the number of songs but that is not the most helpful. Do you think the "Performed song(s)" column should be unsortable? Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• TV show titles starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name

• done. Ippantekina (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Why are some of the benefit special titles in italics and others not? For example, Children In Need (a UK telethon) is in italics but Stand Up to Cancer (also a UK telethon) is not

• As Stand Up to Cancer is a telethon I italicized it. Other concerts were not broadcast on TV/radio so they're not italicized :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Chris, thanks for the comments. I've replied to your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, one thing I missed. TV show titles should also sort based on the next word if they start with "The". Currently this seems to be the case for some but not all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I got that sorted out. Could you double-check? Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Most sources in the article are reliable. Some are acceptable primary sources (i.e. iHeartRadio source to confirm a show at the iHeartRadio Music Festival). Some are long-established local newspapers related to the city where Swift played. However, there are some sources that don't appear to be reliable at a first glance.

• PopCrush is listed as unreliable at WP:A/S.
• Is it possible to replace Bustle, Newsweek, and Us Weekly with better sources? They aren't considered generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES.
• What is the reliability of the following sources: Linfonerealtv, The Boot, Pure Charts, British Comedy Guide, and Canoe.com?

• Swapped Linfonerealtv with Cosmopolitan
• The Boot is published by Townsquare Media who also publishes music review sites listed in Metacritic like BrooklynVegan and XXL. Writers that contributed to The Boot include Annie Zaleski for example ([35]) Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Pure Charts (fr:Charts in France), British Comedy Guide and Canoe.com are all news portals so they should suffice in their usage as reports on live appearances. I don't see issues with them. Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't done spotchecks, but I checked one source, [37], and it doesn't confirm the August 18, 2007 date.

Skyshiftertalk 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Swapped with another source. Ippantekina (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get back to you asap. My preliminary comments are that while Bustle, Us Weekly are not the most reliable for BLP or commentary, in this usage as reports of popular culture they should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ippantekina. No rush, just following up on a number of FLC comments at the moment. Just pinging to see if the concerns have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: @Skyshifter: hey, I've responded above. Let me know if anything needs further adjustments :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Since Skyshifter didn't do spotchecks, I used a random number generator to check 10, and found some consistent problems:

• 23, 67, 218, 236 - good
• 72, 125, 155, 189, 248 - does not explicitly state the date
• 48 - does not explicitly state the date, does not say it's part of the Fearless tour, implies she sang more than the two songs listed

I do believe that the information given is accurate; why wouldn't it be. But over half of the randomly selected refs don't actually say the date for the event they're citing, as far as I can see, which I feel is problematic. Please see what you can do to address this in general (presumably this is an issue for more than just these specific refs). --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Generally news coverage of awards shows/TV like 72, 125, 155 are published pretty much immediately after the events happen; of course articles that explicitly mention the dates do exist so I hope to find alternatives asap. 48 does imply she sang more than the 2 songs listed but since it doesn't say more, why would we include more; plus the "Part of the Fearless Tour" is cited by ref 35. Ippantekina (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: update, I'm running through all refs again to make sure they mention the exact dates. For refs that fail this verification and there are no replacement news/articles/reports, I use {{Cite episode}} or {{Cite AV media}} which are a little on the nose but the second best thing we can go for.. Will update you once it's done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: I've conducted a run-through of the references (phew!) Let me know if it looks better now :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, promoting! --PresN 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC) [36].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1969

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you like songs from movies and stage musicals? Then you will find something you like in the list of Billboard's easy listening chart-toppers of 1969. Alternatively, maybe you like songs about how mankind is going to die out in the future, there's one of those in there too....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Alavense

Excellent work, ChrisTheDude. I only have one question: does it really make sense to have the key that way? If "Hurt So Bad" topped the Year-End but doesn't even feature in the list, I think it would be best to have it mentioned on the prose, wouldn't it? The way it is now, it feels as if the reader would expect (at least I did) to find something highlighted in yellow on the chart and then they don't. Alavense (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: In all honesty I don't really see the need to have it mentioned in the article at all but "it was like that when I got here, your honour" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem, then. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

NØ

• "The chart, which in 1969 was entitled Easy Listening, has undergone various name changes and since 1996 has been published under the title Adult Contemporary." - My Grammar checker is recommending commas before and after "since 1996"
• "The longest unbroken run at number one by a song was eight weeks, achieved by the orchestra leader Henry Mancini's "Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet"." - There does not currently seem to be a source in the article verifying he is an orchestra leader, unless I'm missing something?

Stellar work, and I enjoy the great pictures in these lists as always.--NØ 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support and pass on source review, as all the sources are reliable and/or primary ones that verify the facts :) NØ 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the text
• All images appropriately captioned
• All images have alt text
• All images have proper licensure (AGF on first image, which was own work)

Thanks and wonderful work as always, @ChrisTheDude. Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

The only feedback I have is to consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been. Support, great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, I have added that template! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Marking down a spot for a prose review, most likely to follow sometime tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is great work as expected and I'm not finding much to criticize, though I do have a couple comments:

• a track which peaked at number 2 – per MOS:NUMERAL, shouldn't all numbers below 10 be spelled out? I would also recommend using a non-breaking space, as the word "number" and the position are appearing on separate lines on my laptop.

• Addressed but in a different way. I decided that the specific position at which the song peaked isn't actually that important, the only important thing is that it didn't reach number one... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph, the sequence that follows Five songs topped both listings during the year reads a little awkwardly to me. I feel like removing the "and" before the 5th Dimension's mention and the "as well as" before Zager and Evans would result in a smoother flow.

• Done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No prob Chris—looks good to me! Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) [37].

---

List of SB19 live performances

Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I have nominated an article/list, but here I am with another, List of SB19 live performances! This list documents the live performances that the Filipino boy band SB19 have done since their debut, including tours, one-off concerts, awards shows, television, and more. I began revamping this list last February, but only progressed much later in May, and I finally finished it this week. This has to be the hardest list I have got my hands on revamping; sorting their performances, working with multiple sources, and the size of the article is definitely a pain.

The revamping of lists like this is part of my efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of SB19, hopefully getting them to have their featured topic soon! I believe I have improved the list pretty significantly from its previous state with the criteria in mind, and I think this list is deserving to be promoted as a featured list. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review and accessibility review

• All images have alt text
• All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are captioned appropriately

• All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.

Support on image and accessibility review. 48JCL 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and for being here, 48JCL! – Relayed (t • c) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Vaughan J.

Placeholder. Full table review coming soon! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• {{N/A|—}} → {{N/A}} – The template has the dash "—" already applied. Ditto for the next few sections.

  Done; thanks for spotting that!

• Would it be better to add rowspans? Except the show numbers. See List of Regine Velasquez live performances. Ditto for the next few sections.

  I prefer avoiding rowspans for this list because I think the extra cell borders make it easier to read information row-by-row, especially since there is a lot of similar information in the tables, which can be quite difficult to navigate if rowspans are in place. Also, I use some of the "Virtual" cells with notes for additional information as to where the footages of their performances were recorded.

• {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} per this and this review. Ditto for the next few sections.

  Done

That's all the concerns I have for this review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being here, Vaughan J.! I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Support – Everything else is sorted. For the second concern, that does makes sense, so I'm crossing that out. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Vaughan! – Relayed (t • c) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "They also attended several virtual music festivals" - "attended" makes it sound a bit like they were in the audience of just hanging about. Suggest changing to a word which makes it clear that they actually performed.
• "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and became a featured act at several music festivals" => "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and been a featured act at several music festivals"
• For things like the UP Fair: Hiwaga, I would put "unknown" under "songs performed", as the dash makes it look like they performed no songs
• "Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] until postponed to April 23, 2022" => Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] but was postponed to April 23, 2022"
• That's it I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks for having a look! I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 11:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 11:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MyCat

I was offline in July- sorry for missing your message! Happy to review now that I'm back MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• The band co-headlined another online concert, Forte: A Pop Orchestra Concert, with 4th Impact in October 2021, for the benefit of music scholars - not sure what "for the benefit of music scholars" means
• the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga and two outside the Philippines, the Round: ASEAN–Korea Music Festival 2023 in Indonesia and Pistang Pinoy sa Korea 2024 in South Korea. - I don't think "two outside the Phillipines" is needed, just "the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga, the Round: ASEAN..." would suffice

I see nothing else of concern, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, MyCatIsAChonk! Glad you made it! It's alright. I apologize for making you review as soon as you have returned. Thank you for reviewing BTW. I have addressed all your concerns. (I have been busy lately, which is why I was not able to take action on them sooner.) Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

All good, happy to support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, MyCatIsAChonk! – Relayed (t • c) 07:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC) [38].

---

2018 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of the upcoming Olympics, I started to working on this and it's actually my second non-American football related list nomination ever. It's based on 2022 Winter Olympics medal table, which was promoted May 14, 2023. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Images review by Staraction

• Two images (the ones not in the infobox) require alt text
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published works)
• All images are captioned appropriately

Thanks for your work as always! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Rookie move josh, rookie move. Thanks for catching @Staraction! I've made the changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Four new disciplines in existing sports were introduced to the Winter Olympic Games program in Pyeongchang, including" - the use of "including" implies that the examples listed are going to be a subset of the total but in fact all four are listed, so I would replace "including" with a simple colon
• "Athletes from Germany and Norway tied [...] tying the record" - maybe change the second one to "equalling" to avoid repetition?
• Freestyle skiing guys image caption doesn't need a full stop
• Maybe a footnote to explain "Olympic Athletes from Russia"?
• "After the testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting the formal proceedings" => "After testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting formal proceedings"
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the helpful review! I've implemented all of your suggestions, except that I tweaked your last suggestion to remove "that" from "that was also positive". Oh, I did also remove the period from Marit Bjørgen's photo, which I'm sure she would appreciate =) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• I assume that DSQ means disqualified. It might be worth creating a template for that, with a link to Ejection (sports). If not a template, then at least the link can be considered.
  • Just chipping in to say that IMO I don't think that would be the best link to use in such a template. That article covers the concept of players (in various sports) being required to leave the match/event while it is going on because of an offence. What the "Changes in medal standings" table covers in this and similar articles is competitors who completed the event but then had their results revoked days, weeks, or even months after the event had finished. It's not really the same concept..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, it doesn't look like there is a good wikilink for that concept. Given that, Josh can use the {{Abbr}} template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• You could merge the last two shortish paragraphs of the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've added the abbreviation template, that's a good call on that. I don't loooove merging those last two paragraphs, as they do feel a bit disconnected, but I also think it's a bit off to have those two sentences as their own paragraph, so I've combined them. Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments and citation check from Arconning

• Caption in image: Marit Bjørgen (pictured) won five medals at the 2018 Winter Olympics.
• The caption in the image of the world map doesn't need a full stop.
• Ties are usually mentioned in the medal table section of the article, based on other FLs of medal tables (to retain consistency).
• Could mention the sport where Hungary won their first gold.
• Will get to the source review tomorrow, just claiming it in advance. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Arconning. I've made the changes to the image captions. I also expanded the sentence to call out the event for Hungary. As for the ties, I actually believe the mention that countries are sorted alphabetically if they're tied to be redundant. I don't believe there's really any other method we'd use to sort them in a tie, is there? In regards to Hungary's competition, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1. COC - Reliable, though just wondering why the date's August 10, 2011?
2. IOC - Reliable
3. Reuters - Reliable
4. CNN - Reliable
5. BBC Sport - Reliable
6. IOC - Reliable
7. NBC Olympics - Reliable
8. The Guardian - Reliable
9. NYT - Reliable
10. Yahoo! - Reliable
11. AP - Reliable
12. BBC - Reliable
13. IOC - Reliable
14. ESPN - Reliable
15. New Zealand Herald - Reliable
16. POCOG - Reliable
17. IOC - Reliable, but I'm just wondering what is this used for? If it's to be kept, change the hyphen in the title to an endash.
18. The Guardian - Reliable
19. Daily Mirror - A bit dodgy per WP:RSPSS, but the topic isn't contentious so I'm doing a conditional pass on this one.
20. ESPN - Reliable
21. IOC - Reliable
22. CBC AP - Reliable
23. Telegraph - Reliable
24. Inside the Games - Reliable
25. CAS - Reliable
26. BBC - Reliable
27. IOC - Reliable

• @Hey man im josh If it's part of the criteria, mentions in sources citing the International Olympic Committee, Canadian Olympic Committee, and POCOG, should be non-italicized. Also refs 8, 18, 21, and 22 could use archive links. If not, then I think it's good for me. Arconning (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Ref 1 – Absolutely a mistake. I just tested it in my sandbox to see how I made this mistake and it turns out the autofill from RefToolbar filled in the date as August 10, 2011. I didn't expect there to be a date, so I didn't click the "Show/hide extra fields" button. I missed that and now been removed, good catch!
  • Ref 17 – I did so to reinforce that the sorting method wasn't just a one time thing. In hindsight, this is definitely overkill and unnecessary. Ref 16 is literally perfect for verifying that. I've removed this ref.
  • Archive links – All have been archived. I had to wait a little bit after triggering the archiving on them, but they're all there now.
  • Italics – Why? My understanding is it doesn't particularly matter so long as it's consistent. As far as I'm aware, and I'd absolutely appreciate being corrected if I've misunderstood, it has nothing to do with the titles of the articles themselves, it's just the style of the type of citation.

  @Arconning: Thank you so much for the source review! I hope I've addressed all of your concerns and, if not, I do intend to iron the rest out after your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support, nice work!! Arconning (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• As the editor who promoted the 2022 Winter Olympics medal table to featured list status, I think you should also add a table of official changes in medal standings by country similar to the ones in 1984 Summer, 2012, and 2020 ones.
• Since the parent article 2018 Winter Olympics uses a day-month-year format, all dates indicated in the list should use the DD-MM-YYYY format.

--Birdienest81talk 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

While I think the table in this context is useless and adds nothing of value (it was 1 medal taken and 1 given to another), I've added it anyways. I also don't see an issue with the date formatting, as it's consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Following up to see if the dates are a deal breaker for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

On rethink, the dates don't actually matter to me. I've made the change and I hope you'll support this nomination @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Darn, they haven't been online in five days. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, about the slow response. I'm busy preparing for a camping trip, but yes, it's all good. So, I'll give it a support. Birdienest81talk 08:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [39].

---

Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

After taking a break to focus on other projects, I'm back with the sixth timeline nomination in an ongoing series. This particular timeline documents the 2014 Pacific hurricane season, one of the most active ever recorded in the basin. It included a Category 5 behemoth, the basin's strongest known May hurricane, a rare landfalling system on the Big Island of Hawaii, an infamous hurricane that devastated large swathes of the Baja California peninsula, and twelve other hurricanes for a total that tied an all-time record set over 20 years prior. Until this past week, portions of this listicle (especially from §September onward) were nearly a decade out of date, and a Scary Orange Box^TM was placed eight years ago alluding to this issue, which has now been resolved. I look forward to the community's feedback and will address any concerns as promptly as possible. (Nerdy mathematical aside... 2+0+1+4=7, and if this nomination passes, it will be my seventh featured list.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "and an atypically strong upper-level divergence" - Is there a good wikilink for "divergence"?
• The distances for Genevieve seem very large. Wouldn't it be better to show distances from some point in Hawaii, instead of Baja California? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MPGuy2824 for your feedback. Replies below:

• Adding "an" in front of "upper-level divergence" wouldn't really work because "divergence" is an uncountable noun, at least in this context. Surprisingly, divergence (meteorology) is a redlink; the closest existing article I can think of would probably be convergence zone. Ultimately, I decided to condense the sentence in question to remove mention of divergence, as part of me worried that it was a little too in-depth for casual readers.
• Regarding Genevieve, I thought about how long some of those distances are. I had originally decided to stick with Baja California as a reference point because it is explicitly mentioned by the Tropical Cyclone Report for Genevieve. By contrast, no specific location in Hawaii is mentioned; it only refers to the Hawaiian Islands as a group. I've adjusted the location references beginning with Genevieve's second dissipation—where Hawaii is first mentioned in the TCR—with distances inferred from 21.5°N 158.0°W / 21.5; -158.0, which is the location point in the upper-right corner of the Hawaii article itself. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion based on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

At first glance nothing seems to be unreliable. So Ill take the source review. Everything is archived Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese.

Ill get on with the spot checks soon.

The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese. – Thank you for pointing this out; taken care of! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked all of the odd numbered sources for a total of 20. Everythng checks out.

• Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [40].

---

United States congressional delegations from Idaho

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the Gem State. Hopefully I've improved this article enough for it to be considered a gem here at Wikipedia!

Other FLs in the vein of this one include those for Indiana, Utah, Hawaii, and Connecticut. I've also nominated Arizona, currently another FLC that has gained support from the two reviewers who have reviewed it.

Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any feedback that y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• You'll have to split the "1913–present" table into two since it is wrong (from an accessibility perspective) to have two rows of headers, one of which is in the middle of the table.
• "last Democrat to have represented Connecticut" - Idaho, not Connecticut. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for the comments! I've fixed both - for the first one, is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Or should I split it into two different sections? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Nah, looks fine to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Since Idaho became a U.S. state in 1890, it has sent congressional delegations to the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, beginning with the 51st United States Congress in 1889" - 1889 is not since 1890
• The sentence starting "The longest-serving senator from Idaho" is quite long, maybe split it into two?
• "He was instrumental in the passage of the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Amendments, but opposed the Nineteenth Amendment." - maybe add a few words on which each of these covered, as I doubt many people would know without looking them up......?
• "Frank Church, who similarly served for 24 years on the Foreign Relations Committee" - similar to what? Nobody previously has been mentioned as serving on this committee
• "such that each election, around one-third" => "such that at each election, around one-third" would be better I think
• "who also had served as Idaho's first territorial governor" => "who had also served as Idaho's first territorial governor"
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Hi, thanks for your comments! I've resolved all of them except for the one about Frank Church - both Borah and Church served on the Foreign Relations Committee. Does that sentence need more clarity? Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - don't worry about the Church sentence, I misread it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

EN-Jungwon

• Archive all references
• Same as the previous list, link the websites/publishers wherever possible
• Add categories; [[Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Idaho| ]] and [[Category:United States senators from Arizona| ]]. This keeps it consistent with the other four featured lists of this series.
• Ref 1 add date July 03, 2020
• Ref 3 has the date "September 15, 2021" but I couldn't find the date in the source.
• Ref 5 add date April 26, 2021
• Ref 7 the date is May 24, 2023, not February 1, 2024. Is one of the authors Suzanne Bates. I am unable to confirm whether this Wikipedia article is talking about the same person or not. Please double check before linking the author.
• Ref 17 change title to "Member Profiles"
• Ref 18 add date July 12, 2022
• Ref 20 add date January 27, 2019
• Ref 21, 40 requires subscription
• Ref 25, 38 add a retrieval date

-- EN-Jungwon 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @EN-Jungwon, thanks for the review, it is very appreciated! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. I don't think Suzanne Bates is the same person as the one who wrote the article for ref 7. If there's anything else amiss please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a few unarchived links. I went ahead and archived those. Happy to support now. -- EN-Jungwon 01:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• Section 2 of the US Constitution sets the bar that every state must have at least one rep in the House, regardless of population. This should be added to the lead where it references apportionment based on population (and should be added to all similar lists).
• Currently, the dean, or longest-serving member of Congress from Idaho, is Mike Crapo, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1992 and has served in Congress ever since, serving in the Senate since his election in 1998. this sentence is set-up weird by leading with "dean". I would recommend reordering to something like Mike Crapo has served in the Senate since 1998. As the longest tenured Senator, he holds the honorary title of Dean of the United States Senate. Prior to his tenure in the Senate, he served three terms in the House of Representatives.
• I'll note too that the sentence I quoted above is word-for-word the same sentence under the "Current delegation" section. Whatever you do, there shouldn't be word-for-word regurgitation between the lead and body of the article.
• to serve Idaho in the Senate "serve" sounds a little strong here. "represent" is more appropriate.
• which prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex appears to be grammatically correct but reads as double negative to me. Could we be in the affirmative here and say recognized the right of women to vote?
• including two years as chairman, in addition to serving as chairman of the Church Committee this is a run-on sentence. Recommend adding a full stop after the first instance of "Chairman"
• You have a "current delegation" section yet under the Senate and House sections, you still mention the current delegation. Seems repetitive and not needed. This would also make updating the article easier, not having to update multiple instances after elections.

Nice work. Please ping me when you have responded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments @Gonzo fan2007 and apologies it took so long to respond! I've fixed every issue except for a couple, noted below:

• The concept of the dean of a specific congressional delegation is a little murky. There does not exist a Wikipedia page for the dean of a particular delegation but as far as I can tell it does not relate directly to either Dean of the United States Senate or Dean of the United States House of Representatives. Instead, the congressional delegation of each state has its own dean, which is defined as the longest-serving member of Congress from that state. It appears to be an honorary title and is referenced in many news articles, so it's relevant. I've made some changes to not lead with the word "dean" but what do you suggest as a more permanent solution to this issue?

Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood what you were referencing. It's fine how it is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've changed "prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex" to "prohibited disenfranchisement on account of sex". Technically speaking the text of the amendment did not "[recognize] the right of women to vote"?

That works. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the reference to Idaho's "current senators" in the body of the article; I'm unable to find the one referencing the House. If it's still there, please let me know!

Looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again and I'm looking forward to see your responses! Best, Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One other thing, links to William Borah and Republican Party are duplicated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I have essentially one mention of William Borah linked each section, except for in the United States Senate section, where it is linked in both the caption and the text. Is that okay per WP:LINKDUP? I think I've fixed the duplication of Republican Party. Please let me know if the article still needs work in duplicated links or anywhere else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, support. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [41].

---

List of music released by Romanian artists that has charted in major music markets

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Romanian music released. It is the first list of its kind here on Wikipedia, but I believe it meets the required criteria. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - alt text is needed for the images in the article. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction: Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Unusual and very interesting topic for an article. Here are my comments:

• "Over the years, several songs and albums released by" - first three words are a bit vague. Maybe "Since the 1970s".....?
• "The first documented instance are the works of nai player Gheorghe Zamfir." - I doubt that there any instances which are not documented, so I would change this to "The first Romanian artist to chart in such markets was the nai player Gheorghe Zamfir."
• "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu started charting multiple albums" => "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu charted multiple albums"
• "and in a few other European countries" => "and in European countries"
• "both of which stand as two of the " => "which stand as two of the "
• ""Musica" (2011) by group Fly Project " => ""Musica" (2011) by the group Fly Project "
• "as well as "I Need Your Love" " => "and "I Need Your Love" "
• Notes: "This article lists all music releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)." => "This article lists all charting releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)."
• "has annualy published" => "has annually published"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Many thanks for your comments! I solved them. Let me know if you support the nomination. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• This is fairly nitpick-y, but I do not think "several" in this part, (several songs and albums released by), is needed. It comes across more as a filler word in this context and in my opinion, it does not add that much for the reader.

Removed

• I would remove the links for studio albums and singles as I believe that they are examples of overlinking. The rest of the links look good to me so these are the only two that I would unlink as most readers would be familiar with both of these concepts.

Removed

• I am uncertain about the wording for this part, (the only documented Romanian song to chart in Brazil). The "documented" part makes it seem like there are gaps in information about Brazil's music charts and that there may be other Romanian songs that could have appeared on the Brazilian, but they are just not "documented". Is that the intended meaning? Would anything be lost or changed by removing "documented" from this part?

"Documented" is needed here since Brazil is not a country that has an easily searchable chart archive. "Stereo Love" is the only song we can prove charted there, but my personal opinion is that at least the other big international hit "Mr. Saxobeat" charted there too (it's just we don't have the archives).

I am glad to see you back on Wikipedia! Great work with this list. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think that I have seen a similar type of list in the FLC space (although I have not been particularly active in the FLC process or with FLs or lists in general for some time now). I only have three comments, and they are rather nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this list for promotion. Hopefully, this review will encourage others to take a look at this FLC. Have a great rest of your day and/or night (whichever it is when you are reading this lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments :) I'm here more rarely now and only for special projects. Thank you so much for your words as well :) Done everything, except for one comment I left. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to help out with this FLC. Your reply about the Brazil chart makes sense to me. Best of luck with your future work on here. I hope everything is going well for you overall. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Some comments & thoughts

• There's a dynamic list template at the top of the article. Per #6 Stability at WP:FLCR, not sure if this is allowed but worth pointing out

I have seen other dynamic lists being promoted to FLC status, including my own List of certified albums in Romania. In my opinion, the status of being a dynamic list doesn't affect the stability. Even if this list is probably not complete (since I occasionally add entries I find out about), I would say the "content does not change significantly from day to day" since it already covers the majority of works that have charted.

• "were certified multiple times platinum by Music Canada" -> should this be: "were certified platinum multiple times by Music Canada"?

This is how you refer to music recording certifications. For example, you would also say "It was certified two times/double platinum" rather than "It was certified platinum twice".

• "in selected regions" -> maybe use different word (maybe "in a number of regions"?)

I ended up using "some"; "in a number of regions" implies it was successful in several regions, which is not the case.

• For reference #47: "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 3 October 2015. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.(subscription required), there's a parameter in the {{cite web}} template for source access level so a separate subscription template shouldn't have to be used

Done

• Apply the above for any other refs if there are any other and in general go through the refs to make sure everything's consistently formatted, no unused params, etc. (I'm not too familiar with the way these refs are done so the final say with that's probably best left for the source reviewer

Unused parameters give off a warning when you try to edit the article; in this case, no warning appears, so this indicates there are no parameter problems. There was one more ref with a subscription template, which I have fixed.

• Completely optional but I think it'd be good to add in the Inter-language links ({{ILL}}s) for the album and song titles where there isn't an English wikipage for the album/song already

Done

• "She would go on to have two more top ten hits in Italy around the same time as group Akcent experienced moderate success in some European countries with their single "Kylie" (2005)." -> "She went on to have two more top ten hits in Italy at around the same time as the group Akcent" (personally, I also think the tone here might be slightly too informal but I'll leave it to others to decide on that)

Done

• "would establish itself as part of the international mainstream over the course of the next few years" -> "established itself as part of the..."

Done

• Go through lead and make sure that it uses the past tense when talking about the past (e.g. take out "would go on to")

Done. No other instance found.

• "which stand as two of the most" -> maybe just say "which are two of the most"

Done

• "Furthermore, Inna would go on to score two top ten hits" -> "Inna also scored two top ten hits" ("furthermore" isn't really necessary and doesn't fit with the tone imo)

Done

• "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has annually [...] throughout the years." and "West Germany until 1990" should have in-line refs like the rest of the notes

I don't think references are needed here. In the first note, I link to the List of largest recorded music markets, in which all the IFPI reports that have been published yet are sourced. In the second note, I link to West Germany, which sources the fact that Germany was "West Germany" until 1990.

• Consider adding a See also section with links to List of Romanian artists and/or other similar articles/lists

Done

Well that's everything I have. Interesting list and many thanks for nominating it! :) Ping me on reply if I'm needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 00:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: Hi there Dan. First of all, many thanks for spending time reviewing my nominee. I have answered all your comments. Let me know what you think. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cartoon network freak!!! :) Everything looks good except for the references on the IFPI & West Germany notes, which only needs a ref that verifies "annually published the ten largest recorded music markets...[since] 1996" and a ref that verifies West Germany became Germany in 1990.

In general, while it's true that many readers would just click on the links if they wanted to verify the info, I think in the spirit of WP:V, it's always better to make it as easy as possible for a reader to verify non-obvious info (especially specific details like years which most people don't know/remember), which is easiest when that source is linked in a footnote next to the claim and which is why a lot of FA and FL articles will duplicate refs throughout the article to backup different info and data (so a reader doesn't have to sift through to figure out which ref is backing up which source).

Also, its best imo to assume the average reader doesn't know any specific details like years or data. Really recommend taking a look at WP:ORIENT which although a wiki essay, does a much better job than me explaining why adding footnotes for these things is a good idea. Once the refs are added, I'll add my support for promoting this to FL. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: Thank you again for your further comments. I have in the first case linked to the 1996 and 2024 IFPI reports, while in the second case, I have linked to the 1990 treaty that united West and East Germany to what is now Germany. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cartoon network freak! The refs work great and it looks like that covers the last of it! Support promotion to FL status. Awesome work! :) Dan the Animator 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [42].

---

List of Line of Duty episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
• "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
• "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
• "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
• "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  You strike again as my first reviewer!

  I fixed the first four comments.

  For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first?

  Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Series overview table: The "Originally aired" cell should have scope as colgroup, not col.
• 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. All the tables are missing captions.
• * 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. A few of the header cells in the "Viewing figures" table are missing scopes.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I've added captions to the series overview and episode tables.
  • As for all the scopes, if I'm not mistaken, this would be a far larger issue that I need to raise at the template talk pages? It's not something I can fix at this page specifically. Template:Series overview for example is used on over 8,000 pages, at least 55 of these are featured lists. Some of which, just passed FLC this year. I'd be willing to raise the issue on the template talk pages given that I'm not a template editor (and because it uses LUA, so I wouldn't be able to fix it myself if I were), and I'm not sure how soon it can be addressed, but I just wanted to mention that it is not something that is directly within the scope of my control on this list.

  TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Note: I've posted messages on Template talk:Television ratings graph and Template talk:Series overview. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824: Just curious if you add any further comments on this, or were even potentially willing to support it given that it's expanded outside the scope of this article and the discussion on the template's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've fixed the issue in the {{Television ratings graph}} template, and have made an edit request for the {{Series overview}} template since it is protected. I think we can wait a few days for this to happen. In any case, this FLC still needs a source review before it will be considered for promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  The edit request for the {{Series overview}} template was processed. I can now support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• For all the Series tables, I think a ref should be included in the Directed by and Original air date column headers
• The Line of Duty image next to the lead has no caption/borders/anything. Not sure if this standard but thought I'd comment on it just in case
• Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe List of police television dramas?)

Just a quick pass for now, probably will put any additional suggestions later today if I'm feeling up for it... Dan the Animator 21:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Series three surpassed viewership of the first series" -> "Series three surpassed [the] viewership of the first series" (add "the")
• "Around this time, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred causing BBC One and BBC Two to now be controlled by the same person." is "this time" referring to around the commissioning of the new series in April? (would help to specify for clarity imo) who's the "same person" who gained control of both BBCs? (would be helpful to name them, especially if they have a wikipage); also would recommend rewording the sentence in general to something like "Around the time of the commissioning of the new series, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred, causing ownership over BBC One and BBC Two to become consolidated under [businessman/insert profession name] [insert person's name]."
• "The decision was made to promote" -> for better flow imo: "Following these changes, the decision was made to promote"
• The article for Sport Relief has it italicized but here its left in normal text. Would recommend italicizing it in all instances if that's how it should be
• "The series has been nominated for several awards, also gaining a cult following and becoming the subject of critical acclaim" -> one way it can be reworded: "The series has since been the subject of critical acclaim, receiving nominations for several awards and gaining a large cult following"
• "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming" -> "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming[, respectively]"
• "be in a large conspiracy" -> "be [involved] in a large conspiracy"
• Optional: For the Line of Duty : UK viewers per episode (millions) table near the bottom, add a note/footnote/something briefly indicating what "–" means (I think its fine as-is tbh but I thought it was kinda helpful having a note about it in another FL I looked over recently)
• For ref #73, I'm getting a: Cite error: The named reference Sport Relief Dates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• If it's possible, I recommend trying to consolidate refs #31-34 (next to "subject of critical acclaim") into one reference similar to how ref #55 is a "multi ref" reference; check out Mission: Impossible – Fallout for lots of good examples of how this is done using the note template (see the notes section in that article)

That's everything I got! Awesome work TheDoctorWho (talk)!! :) Dan the Animator 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the air date columns. I also added a border for the image in the article. The directors are credited within the episodes via on-screen credits, so I believe that this would semi-fall under the same guidelines as MOS:PLOTSOURCE (in that the information is sourced to the work itself). I can probably still put together for sources for it if it's absolutely necessary to gain your support. I do also question how well that link would serve readers in a see also section. In the parent article possibly, but from the list of episode page it doesn't quite feel as necessary. Similar to the last point though, I'd also compromise and add it if necessary for a support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well that was quick! Might as well reply now before I head to sleep... I support this being promoted and strongly believe its ready for FL! Thanks again Doctor for your great work (both on wiki and across the realm of timey wimey stuff :) Dan the Animator 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [43].

---

List of Johnson solids

Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

• 
  Square pyramid
• 
  Triaugmented triangular prism
• 
  snub disphenoid

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

• Prose
  • "It is also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area...." ==> "It also includes the number of vertices, edges, and faces, symmetry, surface area..."

    Removed an ungrammatical word. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • "attaching prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation, respectively." ==> "attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively."

    I thought a comma would be supposed to be, but oh well, removed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Sourcing – This is not a source review, just some things I spotted
  • For "Daniele Barbaro’s Perspective of 1568", the author's first name is 'Cosimo' not 'Cosino'.

    Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Cromwell's Polyhedra book is missing an ISBN, which you can find here.

    Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Zalgaller's source is missing an ISBN and the publisher looks wrong. I found this page on Springer

    Nice. Added. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • For "Group Theory in Solid State Physics and Photonics: Problem Solving with Mathematica" and "2D and 3D Image Analysis by Moments", the publisher is called 'John Wiley & Sons', not 'John & Sons Wiley'.

    My mistake. Renamed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Wikilink Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

    Wikilinked. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I've been told you can either wikilink publishers or leave them unlinked as long as you're consistent. You've wikilinked Cambridge University Press but none of the others; it would be good if you could either delink Cambridge University Press or wikilink John Wiley & Sons, Springer, Academic Press, American Mathematical Society and Dover Publications.

    Wikilinked all, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Some of the authors have their full first name and some only have their initial; I believe this can be done in one way or the other but it has to be consistent.

    @Sgubaldo. Sorry, I do not understand here. Are you saying the author's initial name should be either abbreviated or fully named in all of the sources? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yes. For example, have all of them either lik "Cromwell, Peter R." or like "Diudea, M. V." Sgubaldo (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    Well, to think about the efficient way, it would be best to abbreviate at all, rather than finding out their first full names. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.

Here are some more commments:

• The passage

  These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.

is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.

• Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
• Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is $C_{1h}$ of order 2, or simply denoted as $C_{s}$" also necessary? You already explain the $C_{nh}$ group and this is just one example

Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height $bh$. The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height ${\textstyle {\frac {1}{3}}bh}$. From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base $b$ and height $h$. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.

• What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
• When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.

What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.

Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "$C_{1h}=C_{s}$": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry $C_{1h}$ is explicitly stated in the source [44], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as $C_{s}$. Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group $C_{nh}$ with the sentence "The symmetry group $C_{nh}$ of order $2n$ preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about $C_{1h}=C_{s}$, which seems to be a specific case of $C_{nh}$. My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that $C_{1h}$ is denoted as $C_{s}$? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reminder

This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Dantheanimator

• "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
• "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
• "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
• "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
• Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
• "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
• "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)

• also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE

• "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
• "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
• "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
• "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
• "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
• "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
• Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)

Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.

• Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
• Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
• Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

support

• support: Most of the problem have been solved, we shouldn't delay for a long time.--金色黎明 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [45].

---

List of cities in Donetsk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Did an overhaul of the article a few days ago and I think it's ready for the review process. The Ukrainian language wiki version of the list already has selected list status (which is their equivalent of FL) so don't see why this can't be promoted too. Expect there'll be a few things that can be added and some minor improvements but I'm confident based on the state of the article that I'll be able to get this promoted. Also hoping to use this article as a general framework for additional "list of cities in oblast" articles after the review. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thought I'd put my thoughts about this in case it helps future reviewers. While the article as-is I think covers the subject well, I've been considering adding in a column for the establishment years of the cities (which both the Ukrainian and Russian wiki articles have). That said, the main List of cities in Ukraine just sticks with admin. subdivision and population and I also don't want to overload the table with too much info so not sure if this would be a good addition. Also was thinking of adding into the lead a few sentences about which are the oldest cities, that many were created as part of industrialization and are tied to the mining industry, and maybe also some comments about the current status of some of the cities (e.g. the fact that Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, etc. have been mostly destroyed during the full-scale invasion) but not sure if it makes sense here since these already fall in the Donetsk Oblast article's scope. Feel free to let me know y'all's thoughts on these and hopefully they help with ideas but happy to make whatever improvements I can to the article! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• No article should start with "this is a list". Take a look at some other FLCs and come up with a more engaging opening sentence.

Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say: There are currently 52 populated places in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, that have been officially granted city status...by the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.

That list was promoted over 15 years ago and standards have changed massively since then. Your alternative suggestion sounds good for an opening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it based on the above. Thanks again ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast is" => "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast was" (2022 was two years ago)

Fixed

• Other verbs in that sentence should also be in past tense

Also fixed

• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Drive by comments

• Just like the first comment above saying no article should start with "this is a list", no article should have a reference to the list outside of the list itself. The sentence "The below list shows the English name, Ukrainian name, raion, 2001 census recorded population, 2022 population estimate, and population percent change for each city." does not seem to serve a purpose.

Fixed

• "currently" not needed in first sentence.

Fixed

• What do the numbers in the first column mean? Why is this column there?

Fixed? when overhauling this article, I tried to base it on conceptually similar articles, primarily List of cities in Ukraine and others like List of cities in Australia by population and List of cities in Kansas. From my understanding and the way I've always used it, the column is a type of number ranking which allows readers to sort tables and have number rankings for each row, which can be quiet useful for finding out things like what's the 10th largest city in 2001/2022, how many cities saw 10%+ pop. change, etc. In case it helps, I added one of the template's title options "#" on the top of the column with some extra table code. That said, I saw other list articles such as List of cities in Canada and List of cities in the United Kingdom don't use it so I don't mind taking it out. The template also allows for the title "No." but I think "#" works just the same. Let me know what you think about it though.

• It's not common to have a link to a portal in the see also, would suggest removing both portals from the see also section.

Removed

• Image alts could be more descriptive (for accessibility reasons)

Fixed? Tried to make them more informative but let me know if I should reword/shorten/expand them.

• as could image captions (for example, "the largest city in Donetsk")

same as above

• table completely unsourced, need refs for population columns in header.

Fixed 2022 column; for the 2001 census results, I'm currently searching for a Ukrainian gov. website to add to that column though haven't had luck with finding a gov. source that lists all of them. I'll make sure to send a follow-up update when I find it!

• No need for external links subheading, just external links is fine

Fixed

Normally estimates would not be encyclopedic, but given the extenuating circumstances and lack of any recent census, I suppose this makes sense until the next census? Other than these points above, the article looks quite good! Many of them are vital before being promoted.

Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.

Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.

Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the |format= parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! [[City|City name]] becomes !scope=col | [[City|City name]]. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Amvrosiivka]] becomes !scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]], on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks PresN for the reply! I was hoping when I pinged that you and Mattximus would give supports to this nom, which would bring the support count up to 3 which I think is the minimum needed for consensus? That said, I'm not too much in a rush; rather, since I have to take a semi-Wikibreak not long from now (in July) where I'll be able to edit but not too much, I was hoping to get this list as thoroughly checked and improved as possible so that when I nominate the remaining lists for this series, I won't have to make any major edits on those articles (they're all relatively similar too so whatever change I make one list likely would have to be made on the others, which is easier to do before those articles are created). I understand you all are busy so no worries about promoting but it would help a lot to know if I should expect to make additional changes. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:

Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.

• The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.

Fixed

• That's it!

Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mattximus:! :) I saw that the Luhansk list is already in queue for a source review but not this one so not sure if there'll be a source review soon. About the source tho, how does it look on your end? Is it the link to the ukr gov stats website that doesn't work (it's an unsecure site so might help to check browser settings) or is it the RAR file download link that doesn't work (the instructions on the wikiref are supposed to help with this)? Dan the Animator 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are usage tagged properly (AGF on own works)
• All images have alt text except for the map in the infobox. Suggestion: the alt text has citation numbers (ie. [22]) for some images, those probably do not need to be in the alt text
• All images have relevant captions

Thanks for your work @Dan the Animator! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment by FL nominator

• @Mattximus, Steelkamp, Dajasj, and Chipmunkdavis: Many sorries for the bother but considering y'all's contribution to the other, very similar FLN for List of cities in Luhansk Oblast which got promoted a few days ago, and my completion of applying all the suggestions from that nom to this article, I thought I'd ping y'all in case any of y'all are interested taking (or retaking) a look at this list now and hopefully providing comments so the nom can advance. @PresN: thanks for doing the source review on the Luhansk list!!! :) Thought I'd ping here in case you're interested in doing this one too; also, they share about 70% of the same exact refs (plus a lot of shared content too) so most of the source review for this article you already technically did with the Luhansk review which I thought might make this one a lot easier/quicker to get through. Sorry again for any bothers and looking forward to any additional feedback and to getting this nom completed! Dan the Animator 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from CMD

As the nominator noted above, I made comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Luhansk Oblast/archive1 which appear to have already been actioned here.

• Prose/lead.

  "...occupied all cities located..." might be clearer with a number, "...occupied all X cities located..."

  A number may also be helpful at "Additional cities were...", which may provide a route to reword/remove the "...while an additional two cities (Lyman and Sviatohirsk) have been recovered..." wording, as I am not sure "addition" is clear in meaning. Having numbers for both invasions and the counteroffensive means that there is no need for an "As of X date...", which might quickly appear dated.

  The final sentence is a tad confusing. Firstly, "occupation of the three reformed raions" is an odd pipe, all of the raions were reformed (removing "the" may solve this problem). Secondly, "including the cities of Bunhe, Chystiakove, Kalmiuske, and Khrestivka" is unclear, I assume those four are former cities of regional significance, but the preceding clause already states "reformed raions" so I would assume they are included by default. Lastly, "the three raions[b] and four cities' new names have only de jure status" seems to imply that the cities under Russian control outside of the 2015 occupation zone de facto use the new names, which would surprise me. It also reads oddly that the raion names are specifically pointed out, this list isn't about the raions and noting names specifically as de jure suggests that the raion otherwise operates de facto, which would also surprise me.

• Comprehensiveness: Comprehensive.
• Structure: Is one table, sortable.
• Style: Not necessarily my strong point, but the decorative images are all licenced as is the locator map. There is a "Jump to table of cities" for mobile access. Alt text is present on all images bar the infobox, which does not seem to have the feature encoded.
• Stability: Stable.

As with the previous review this is a novel interwiki usage, but I don't see how it affects the FLCR. I do think this article (and similar ones) would be served well by dropping the locator infobox and replacing it with a map of the Oblast showing the various city locations, but that is also not a FLCR requirement. In summary, questions for FLCR1/2 and no questions for the other FLCR. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @CMD: for the review! I think all the suggestions should be addressed. I applied some of the rewording and moved some of the other confusing content into efn notes. Also, thanks for the suggestion with the map! Added it and I think it turned out perfect! (props to Tone for their exceptional work on the UNESCO FL maps which helped a ton with creating this map)! :) I'll also apply these edits to the other lists if you think they're alright CMD but let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve these lists! Thanks again! Dan the Animator 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks CMD! I added in your source into the names efn together with some additional sources. I added a complementary source for the primary ref I think you're talking about (the "About the boundaries and list of raions...temporarily occupied" ref): journalist's David Gormezano France 24 piece characterizes the main Donbas war phase as "April 2014 – February 2015" and also says in that section "On February 12, 2015, the so-called Minsk II agreements formalised the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory...In the years that followed, and until the full-scale Russian attack on February 24, 2022, small-scale attacks and artillery fire hardly ever ceased, without the line of contact between the forces really moving." which should be enough imo to back up the 2015 year (most of the cities were actually occupied in 2014 but due to Debaltseve, I think the wording "by 2015" is more accurate. To sum up, the "About the boundaries" ref verifies which cities were occupied during the Donbas war while the France 24 piece backs up the claim that the occupations of cities during the Donbas war happened between April 2014 and February 2015.

About the use of the 2020 raions when talking about the 2014-2015 occupation: its mostly done out of concision than any actual connection between the two (technically, the new raions' boundaries were decided with consideration of what territories were occupied by DPR/LPR forces at the time so the area could be easier to govern (at least as far as I know) but aside from that, there isn't any actual meaningful connection between the new raions and what areas are occupied). Using the new raions saves on words and makes it easier to understand since there's no caveat to which cities in the raions are occupied and which aren't (for the older raions, since many of the cities are also municipalities, there'd be a need to either list all 21 cities occupied or separately list all the occupied city municipalities and raions, both of which would be unduly and more confusing imo). Let me know if it'd help to find a source mentioning/discussing this rationale for the boundaries for the new raions.

Let me know if there's anything I'm missing or anything else that can be improved and whether this list is ready for promotion! Thanks, Dan the Animator 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah got it. I definitely agree more research should be done regarding Ukrainian administrative laws and reforms. About the de facto/de jure raions, as far as I understand it, the de facto raions function as they've always had in the pre-2022 occupied territories while for newly occupied territories, my guess would be it mostly affects the number of Russia-appointed representatives certain administrative entities get, what sort of government websites/digital representation the Russian government gives those entities, how the areas subordinated to those entities are referred to in Russian law, and, at least on paper, how much money/funding goes to each district (although I think its fair to say a lot of that money gets siphoned off by those Russia-appointed representatives or by Russia itself). Probably also a few other miscellaneous things but those are the main "practical effects" of the de facto raions. For de jure raions, its mostly just having websites in some cases (I remember reading a law regarding Crimea's new raions which mandated creating representation of the raions, which would likely include websites), and how the territories subordinated to new raions are referred to in laws (both in Ukraine and by others).

I think one of the reasons why there hasn't really been any research into the "prospective" raions is because they didn't actually exist, either de jure or de facto, until relatively recently (the "occupied terr. admin. reform date" efn note elaborates on this caveat a bit more). And with the ongoing invasion and considerable budget strain of the Ukrainian government, I doubt they've been able to do anything meaningful in the way of these raions imo. Not sure if my reply really answers your question or helps too much but hope its interesting. Thanks again for the review and great suggestions (and the source)! :) Dan the Animator 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [46].

---

List of municipalities in Albacete

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article and together we would like to create a template that can be used on the other Spanish provinces, eventually bringing them up to featured list status. This one may require some significant peer editing as it is the first one for Spain, but it will pay off as it can be replicated in the other Spanish provinces. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There seems to be a mish-mash of US and UK English used, given that I can see both "The organisation of the municipalities" and "Municipalities are categorized". As the subject matter relates to a non-English speaking country it probably doesn't matter which type of English is used, but whichever one it is should be consistent throughout.

• Found this one instance and fixed, but are there others? Should be consistent now.

• "A further concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, although the figure can never be an odd one" - does this not contradict the previous sentence, which sets out the different levels of concejales based on population and every figure is an odd one?

• I assume it means you can never add an odd number as that would make the total even? I will try to reword.

That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I trust you guys to figure this out between you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes my wording is incorrect. I reworded it. Does this new wording make sense? Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I meant, Mattximus. Now it's fine. We are happy now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks! Both concerns addressed! Mattximus (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images relevant to the article; consider replacing the gallery with images to the side of the table? If so, just adding the four most populous municipalities might be a little too bland. Maybe have images of other municipalities that are interesting in other ways featured as images. Although - this comment is mostly just from personal taste.

I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.

Placing images on the side does cause some accessibility issues on small screens like phones I believe. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Captions relevant to the images (maybe for the second, black-and-white map, "Map of municipalities in the province of Albacete"?

Done.

• All images have alt text except for the second, black-and-white map, captioned "Municipalities in the province of Albacete"

Done.

• All images under appropriate license. AGF on self-published works.

Thanks for your good work @Mattximus & @Alavense! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Staraction. I've made the changes you suggested, except for the first one, because I'm not sure about that. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local affairs." "in their local affairs" is to vague, Maybe "in local administration".

• Agreed, made change.

• "elected by universal suffrage on a list system". You need to give details of the list system used.

• I will let Alavense respond to this one, I'm only party sure it means the registration list alluded to early in the article where everyone registers to a municipality. Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've expanded the information about that, Dudley Miles. I hope it's now easier to understand. Alavense (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• "junta de gobierno local". A translation would be helpful.

• did a translation but not sure if 100% correct, will defer to Alavense's Spanish.

• I'm happy with that - Alavense.

• It would make the article more attractive to have more photos.

• Added two more, any more required?

I suggest putting a selection of images on the right of the table. It is a narrow table compared with many, so should cause less problems on phones provided a fixed width such as px is not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this can be an improvement, Dudley Miles. How many images should we add? Amongst the most recently promoted lists, I see some with fewer (or even no) images than this one. Anyway, we already had a map highlighting the province inside Spain, another map with every single municipality located and a selection of images for the most populous municipalities in a tidy row. Now, we have more images, but it's still an arbitrary selection. However, they are not in a tidy row anymore. Besides, I think it's less comfortable for those readers using the mobile app, because they have to scroll to find a table (which is, after all, the most important thing in the list) which has sunk further down. Alavense (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• All three items in 'Works cited' have error messages.

• I tried these and they all work for me, but maybe Alavense knows?

• The error messages go to Category:CS1 maint: date and year. There is a script which displays the errors, but I cannot remember which one. You should be able to get advice at User talk:Trappist the monk. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I won't be able to use a computer until at least tomorrow, but I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? - Alavense.

• OK. The error messages have gone now. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• The 'External links' links heading for commons looks odd and is better deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. Mattximus (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree on images, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and no problems were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [47].

---

List of Green Bay Packers team records

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A high-level overview of Green Bay Packers team records. Note, per WP:NOTSTATS, I tried to stick to the most notable and commonly reported records, and avoided to the best of my ability to dive too much into sports almanac or statbook territory. As always, happy to address any concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Drive by comments, I'll be back for a full review later on:

• A number of these year ranges use 4 digits for the second part of the range while others only use 2 digits.
• Under the team achievements section, most of the items in that should be changes to title case (I'll call it out more specifically in the full review depending on what changes are made before I get to it)
• "Single season" vs "single-season" – You used "single season", but most refs tend to use "single-season". I believe "single-season" is correct.
• Rushing touchdowns in a single game, needs an "&" when listing the people

As mentioned, I'll be back for a thorough review. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, I addressed all of them except the title case, which I will wait for your full review. Note that if a date range covers a transition from 1999 to 2000, the years should be expanded to 4 digits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 6 – Should be Green Bay Packers 2023 instead
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• A lot of refs – Shouldn't these be "Green Bay Packers (2023)" instead of "Green Bay Packers 2023"? This isn't a ref format I'm super comfortable or confident in, but, given the source listed above as "Green Bay Packers (2023)", I thought it best if they matched
  • No, per the {{Sfn}} template, this is how it is supposed to be. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• I don't particularly LOVE FootballDB.com as a source, but I recognize that PFR is lacking in some of the stats they provide for free. Has footballDB.com ever been evaluated for reliability at any of the relevant boards? I would appreciate a recognized reliable source outside of PFR for statistics.

I replaced that FootballDB sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Team achievements table:

• Downcase "Titles" to "titles" in all of these headers
• Downcase "Wild Card Berths" to "Wild card berths"
• Downcase "Playoff Appearances" to "Playoff apperances"
• Downcase "NFL Title Game Appearances" to "NFL Title Game appearances"
• Downcase "Super Bowl Appearances" to "Super Bowl appearances"
• Downcase "All-time Record" to "All-time record"

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Single-game records -> Kicking -> Field goals made – Wikilink Ryan Longwell and Mason Crosby

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• A number of these "seasons leading the league in xyz" under the notable records section could be wikilinked to the annual lists in Category:Lists of National Football League annual leaders, particularly for the instances where it's an NFL record.

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Are you calling out ties for NFL records? I see ties / most recent person to accomplish a feat listed for non-records. I'm looking at most safeties in a season specifically, where there's apparently been 19 other players who have also accomplished 2 safeties in a single season. Another example would be longest reception (99 yards).

I am not doing that. Do you think it is necessary? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in lowest interception percentage – Should call out minimum number of attempts to qualify.

The source doesn't provide this. My assumption is that each season had to qualify, but that would likely be OR. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in receiving yards – Stray "pg 292" in text which looks like it was meant to be in the ref

Deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note i, for sacks becoming an official stat in 1982 – Can you tweak this note to state whether this is counting that or not? I know we have stats available for 1960–1981, and though these are unofficial, we both know the NFL and teams often count them as if they were. Could be a useful clarifying point, though, it looks like it doesn't make a difference to who holds the record.
  • Clarified. The Packers restrict these totals to post-1982, so I will here too. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Career records -> Special teams -> Yards per punt (net) – What's the threshold to qualify? I'll note that PFR uses a threshold of 250 punts for career punting stats, which would mean it probably should be Tim Masthay for this as well

Added threshold and fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Single-season records -> Offense -> QB rating – No qualifying threshold stated.
  • Added threshold. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Use "&" instead of a comma to separate the two players, as it looks like that's what you're trying to do throughout.

• Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Attempts
• Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Yards
• Single-game records -> Special teams -> Punting -> Punts

Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Other notable records -> Offense -> Most consecutive seasons leading league in total touchdowns – Close the brackets

Brackets closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo! Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review Hey man im josh. I have addressed everything except two items, where I provided responses. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's necessary to call out when something noted as an NFL record is a tie. I think it might be nice to have it as T-NFL record in the bracket to make it clear, but I won't be a stickler for it. Source review passed, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Staraction

• All images have alt text
• All images are appropriately licensed (WP:AGF on self-published works)
• All images are relevant to the article
• Captions:
  • "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in 2019 with 203." -> "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in a single game in 2019 with 203."
  • "Billy Howton had 257 receiving yards in a 1956 game, the Packers' record for a single-game."

@Gonzo fan2007 I think that's it from me! Thanks for the nomination, as someone who doesn't follow American football very closely it was an interesting read. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Staraction! I fixed both captions, although Martinez's record was for a single season, not a single game :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Since entering the NFL, the team has won 13 championships (the most in NFL history), including nine NFL Championships prior to 1966 and four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the AFL–NFL merger. - As per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• 40 years later - Figures at the beginning of a sentence should be avoided.
• "phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon", so a relatively recent phenomena doesn't make sense.
• In the first table, it should say "Ref." as there's only one. Please include the "." and maybe you can use {{abbr}}.
• over a two season period - "a two-season period".
• I see a lack of consistency when it comes to the saxon genitive: Donald Driver holds the Packers record but Davante Adams set the Packers' single-season receiving records. There are several instances of this.
• In the notes, Minimum one attempt per game to qualify but Minimum 1 kick return per game to qualify.

That's all I saw, Gonzo fan2007. Nice work. Alavense (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Alavense! I implemented the first five bullets and the last one. Regarding the saxon genitive, does there need to be consistency? I often try not to be repetitive, so there is some purposeful change to sentence structure and diction. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.