Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2020

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) 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Woody Harrelson filmography

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Prior to working on this, I wasn't aware of how prolific an actor Harrelson is. I hope this serves as a comprehensive and informative list. Thanks! ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead Literally the only thing I have on the lead is that "In 2021, Harrelson will portray Cletus Kasady (i.e. Carnage)" looks a bit odd with the use of "ie". I think it would be better as "In 2021, Harrelson will portray Cletus Kasady a.k.a. Carnage". I will look at the table later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)  I changed that to a.k.a. ~ HAL333 22:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Comments on the tables Any title that starts with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title If you sort the year column in descending order (newest to oldest) the "TBA" row goes to the bottom. It should go to the top, so you probably need to use a hidden sort template to make it sort as if it were 2021 or 2022. That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude All done. ~ HAL333 16:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Comments on the refs Check that the ref title shown here is the actual title. The title shown for ref 1, for example, is "Woody Harrelson Emmy Nominated", but the actual title of the source is simply "Woody Harrelson". Do not show ref titles in all caps, even if that is how they are stylised in the actual source. That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude Gladly done. ~ HAL333 22:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support — But consider archiving sources (WP:PLRT). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA Thanks for the advice. I'm in the process of doing it, but it'll take a while. ~ HAL333 03:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA  Done Just for future reference, is there a bot that I can assign to do that? ~ HAL333 05:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, use this tool. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Support. All the images are appropriate to the subject and properly-licensed. They fulfill the "5b)Visual appeal" criteria. Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot find anything to complain about in the text so I support in general, but am I being too picky by saying that only the top pic mentions a performance and the 1996 pic is not great quality? If there are no better pics you could ask the graphics workshop if they could improve the 1996 pic as the expressions on the guys faces and their gestures are great, but would it be possible to see them more clearly without overexposing the background? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I just decided to remove the 1996 pic. ~ HAL333 23:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1 I added another image. Did you notice anything else? ~ HAL333 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support --- Chidgk1 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [2].

---

Naomi Watts filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

British actress Naomi Watts is known for her roles in Mulholland Drive, The Ring, 21 Grams, and more recently in the television series Gypsy and The Loudest Voice. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "in Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed" => "in the Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed"
• "for which she garnered a nomination for Best Actress" => "for which she garnered nominations for Best Actress" (as it refers to three separate nominations)
• "in biographical drama Fair Game" => "in the biographical drama Fair Game"
• Film titles which start with a number should sort as if they start with the equivalent word
• If you sort on any other column and then try to resort on the year column, the TBA values all go to the top when they should go to the bottom
• Think that's it from me, looking good generally! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. Cowlibob (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography that is in the style I mentioned. This seems to have been common practice judging by older nominations, is there a reason why this has changed? - NapHit (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@NapHit: Thanks for your comment. The table is per WP:FILMOGRAPHY which is the agreed model per consensus for these type of lists by the relevant WikiProject. Most FLCs and lists of this nature follow this format to my knowledge. I don't have a preference. Cowlibob (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

I will assume good faith that File:Naomi Watts Cannes 2015 2.jpg is the uploader's work as claimed. Starting three consecutive sentences with "she" (as you've done in the first paragraph) is repetitive. Don't use episode counts for starring/major recurring roles. For Twin Peaks, I'd just replace that count with "Season 3". Perhaps the "(voice)" could be moved to the notes column under "Video games". These shouldn't be too hard to fix. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your review. I've made amendments per above. Removed the unused notes column in the video games section. I think the photo is by a prolific uploader who has given an OTRS ticket verifying this. Cowlibob (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You now have my support. Another job well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Intending to claim WikiCup points for this review.) has appeared in ... video games – Just the one, right? I'm not sure the video game warrants mention in the first sentence. Can I suggest mentioning the countries her main TV/film credits come from instead? It seems at a first glance that she's worked on many American and Australian projects. She then pursued a brief career in the fashion industry including as a model and later as a fashion editor. — "including ... and later" reads a bit oddly. Either "fashion industry, first as a model and later as a fashion editor" if this is factually correct or "including as a model and a fashion editor" if these are just the two most significant aspects of this career. Children of the Corn IV needs the year of release after its mention. in psychological thriller series Gypsy — "in the psychological thriller ..." to avoid the false title, for consistency with the rest of the lead. In Film, perhaps the header "Role" should be "Role(s)" because of Ophelia. On the same note, "/" is used twice, but once for the same character under two names and once for two different characters. Perhaps the latter could be changed for clarity, to either "and" or a line break. "Leo's Girlfriend" – Why the uppercase "G"? "also associate producer" – "Also" for consistency. The opposite of a point above. In Television, "Role(s)" should be "Role" as there's only one role per show listed. MOS:NUMNOTES says In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures; but numbers within a table's explanatory text and comments follow the general rule. To be honest, I'm not clear on which the "Notes" column comes under. Which do you think? This is important for the Television cells "1 episode" and "Season 3". Can you get a verifiable figure for the number of Home and Away episodes Watts was in, or is that too big an ask? I believe this is the only thing in Television where she didn't appear in the entire thing, but there isn't a note to say how much she was in. Source spotchecks done on refs #4, #7, #11, #17, #18, #51, #70, #96, #101 and #108, as of this oldid, with no issues. Ref #91 issue: not convinced that "in negotiations" is the same as "will appear in", especially when the source is from a while ago. A more recent one like this should work. Ref #109 can be archived; I think TheWrap should be in italics and it should be linked as this is its first appearance in the reference section. Couldn't find a single other inconsistency. Image license is good.

A comprehensive list with very impressive attention to detail overall, just a few nitpicks. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for your review. I think I've fixed the above. For the numbers in the table, I think they would be the former so have expressed all the numbers as figures rather than words. It would look strange to express season number by its words than numbers. Replaced ref for Boss Level with your one, thanks. Added a ref for number of episodes on Home and Away. Cowlibob (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: one small change in response to the new content, here. Revert if you prefer the old version. All issues listed above addressed. Excellent layout, consistent style, comprehensive and well-sourced. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [3].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Iceland

Nominator(s): Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The land of fire and ice (insert your favorite GoT pun - but hey, they filmed it there as well!). A new nomination from Northern Europe, following the FLs for Norway and Denmark, and Finland is getting support. Medium-term plan is to get all the countries covered so I can nominate a featured topic, let's see. Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• I would make the bit in brackets a separate sentence starting "The existing site...."
• "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir has served" => "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir served"
• "as a venue of Althing" => "as a venue for the Althing"
• "Althing is also the oldest surviving parliament in the world" => "Althing is the oldest surviving parliament in the world"
• "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible though the remains" => "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible, although the remains"
• "off the South coast of Iceland" - no need for capital S
• "in view of biodiversity, the fish" - change the comma to a semi-colon
• "The shape and functions of these houses were changing over time" => "The shape and functions of these houses changed over time"
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• See FLC criterion 3b 3c. I have the same question here as in the FLC for List of World Heritage Sites in Finland: what is in this list that isn't in, and shouldn't be in, the larger List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe? (Personally, I don't think this is a fatal objection ... there's an argument that more text could be added to this list ... but others may disagree.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw this now. The general list is so-so, since it mostly includes copy-paste descriptions from the UNESCO sites, has no maps, and provides little content related to the tentative list. So, if there are enough entries on either list, a separate article makes sense. I'll address the other comments later. --Tone 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I probably have time for just one review of these, so I'll go have another look at Finland. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

• Perhaps add an article description
• Perhaps shorten the beginning to something like:

"The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites are places of cultural or natural importance; as described in the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, accepted by Iceland in 1995. Natural sites Surtsey and Vatnajökull National Park were added in 2008 and 2019. Þingvellir National Park was listed back in 2004 as a cultural site, and is now on the tentative list both for nature and as a part of a new transnational Viking heritage nomination."

• Then maybe add more in the lede about the other tentative list sites and/or something else - such as how locals and tourists feel about the list

• I made a few minor copyedits but these 2 sentences are confusing me: "The turf house tradition was brought to Iceland by the first settlers and has evolved from the longhouses built from timber and covered by turf. The shape and functions of these houses changed over time, adapting to local climate and the needs of the people." So were the first ones in Iceland the longhouses,or were those the ones in the settlers previous homeland but there was no timber in Iceland, or maybe they started with the original style but ran out of timber? Maybe also add an example of how they evolved.

If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save a few glaciers from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Thank you for the edits. I rewrote the turf part which was indeed confusing. I would stick with the intro as it is in the standard form considering other lists, and I usually even get complaints that they are too short. What locals feel about the list is perhaps out of the scope here, or at least some good sources would be required. I'll have a look at the coal power stations soon. --Tone 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Two further sites were added in 2008 (Surtsey) and 2019 (Vatnajökull National Park)." The brackets looks clumsy to me. How about "Two further sites were added, Surtsey in 2008 and Vatnajökull National Park in 2019."
• Þingvellir National Park in the tentative list could be expanded.
• "The structure of a turf house is built from timber and they are covered by turf." Ungrammatical change from singular to plural.
• Looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Done! The Þingvellir section in the tentative list as a serial nomination already covers the above description, being the parliament and Viking legacy, so I though it was enough. --Tone 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry I missed this. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TRM

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(WikiCup entry) Image caption is a fragment so it doesn't need a full stop. " Iceland accepted the convention on 19 December 1995,... " this sentence is unreferenced. " in the following years" this doesn't seem necessary when you go on to tell us the years they were added. "South-Eastern Iceland" is that capitalisation necessary? Is it a formal name of a region of Iceland? "glacier[7] and " never keen on this awkwardly positioned refs. "The Turf House Tradition" normally would ignore "The" when sorting alphabetically. Avoid SHOUTING in ref, e.g. ref 12. "a rhyolitic stratovolcano " sea of blue. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Shearonink

• The one table entry with a blue background should have a key at that table. I was about to ask the reason when I finally saw the key elsewhere.
• The Turf House Tradition has an inserted Wikilink to the article about generic turf houses. The Wikilinkage would seem to be more appropriate in the paragraph explaining the Icelandic variant not in the overall Title for that particular Tentative Nomination.

Overall, well-written & interesting. I'll do another deep-dive to see if I find anything else - if not, I'm inclined to support. Shearonink (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:, @Shearonink:, I'm through. As for the glacier reference, this is only about being the Europe's second largest glacier, which the other reference does not say, so I wouldn't move it. As for the turf houses, I agree and I moved the wikilink to the text. There does not seem to be a dedicated page, but tentative pages sometimes do not have them. WHS should. Not sure about "the" on sorting, I leave you the decision whether to change it or not. --Tone 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – I found one issue that should be addressed: reference 7 needs an access date. Otherwise, the reliability and formatting of the sources look fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Done! --Tone 09:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [4].

---

List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This list, as the title suggests, comprises the pre-dreadnought type battleships built for the British Royal Navy - the Brits built so many battleships we had to split the lists into pre- and post-Dreadnought types to keep them manageable. I wrote the list last year and it passed a Milhist A-class review in February. I think it should be up to snuff, but I look forward to correcting any issues reviewers detect. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Review by Guerillero

Citation review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Citation review McBride 2005 doesn't need page numbers in the References section because of the footnotes That's not right; long cites for articles should always include the full page range (see for instance the CMoS, under the "Journal article" heading). Sure --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC) The citations in the Further reading section is throwing of Harv errors They broke how the Harv checker scripts interact with the cite family of templates (see here) - nothing we can do about it. Thanks, I hate it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC) The sources are all reliable Other thoughts Take a gander at WP:ACCESS. I think the tables need titles Good point - I've added captions for the tables, but I don't know if they're ok or not Nothing is sortable, the tables are so small that I don't think that it is needed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks Guerillero. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Very well written and organized. The images for each ship are very good as well. ~ HAL333 00:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The article is clear well written. Perhaps it can be made more clear in the lead what set the Royal Sovereigns apart from earlier ironclad (British) battleships? It now says ‘introduced the standard layout associated with pre-dreadnought’. I am no expert but the layout of the preceding Trafalgar-class battleships looks somewhat similar. Was it the type of guns, armor, superstructure that set them apart. Pindanl (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea - how does this note sound to you? Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me.Pindanl (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This list is in fine shape. A few nitpicks:

Lead

• "over the combined French and Russian fleets"
  • Added
• "led to the eight-ship King Edward VII class"
  • Done

Body

• any reason why individual ships aren't linked at first mention in the narrative?
  • Not really - should be linked now
• any reason why the ships in the tables aren't consistently listed in order of commissioning? What's the rationale for the order?
  • No, and that's a good question - I didn't do anything to the order of the tables when I overhauled the list. They should be fixed now
• The conversion rounding on HMS Renown's guns could be tightened, the ship article says 254 mm?
  • Done
• can you check the displacement of the Majestic class? Looks like LT and tons have been swapped here?
  • Good catch
• "where Ocean and Goliath were"
  • Good catch
• the Canopus-class battleship table is headed Summary of the Majestic class
  • Fixed
• the displacement of the Duncan class is standard, not full load
  • Fixed
• suggest "torpedoed by the U-boat UB-50" as you have done earlier
  • Done
• the conversion of the displacement on the KEVII class table is rounded differently from the article
  • Fixed
• not for this list, but the laid down date for Dominion in the KEVII-class article says 25 May 1902, not 23 May 1902
  • Typo in that article, I think
• "sunk by the U-boat U-21"
  • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries, supporting. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

Another list of ships this'll be (probably) a long review. Royal Sovereign class

• for most of the pre-dreadnoughts built in Britain.[2][3][4][1] Re-order the refs here.
  • Fixed - adding the note mentioned above screwed up the ref order
• Link Revenge, Royal Oak, Empress of India, Royal Sovereign, Ramilies, Hood, Repulse and Resolution.
  • Done per PM's comment above
• refits except Hood, and afterward they were placed American afterward.
  • What's the British equivalent?
    • We say "afterwards". If the Hood was also put in reserve by 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and by 1904–1905 they had all been put in reserve." But if they were all put in reserve during 1904-1905 how about "Starting in 1900, all members of the class in the Mediterranean were recalled to Britain for refits except Hood, and in 1904–1905 they were all placed in reserve."Chidgk1 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hey Nate long time no see. Anyway, could you please address this it's the last one who should be addressed before I'll give a support? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• After the start of the First World War in August 1914 WWI started in July maybe you could say "After the British entered the war in August 1914"?
  • Good point
• Why is there in the Fate part a date when HMS Hood was sunk while the rest and their "broken up" don't have the day nor even the month?
  • Because the scuttling was a discrete event that took place on a single day and the process of breaking up a ship the size of a battleship is not (i.e., it takes many months, years even, and precise dates are less relevant [and generally not available in any case])

Centurion class

• Link Centurion and Barfleur.
  • Fixed as above
• She moved to Chinese waters in 1898 Wait about whom are we talking about?
  • Barfleur - Centurion was already on the China station - I figured the name didn't need to be repeated because of the context, but I can add it if it's not clear - let me know
• I believe the image of HMS Centurion should have more descriptions like maybe a year or so?
  • Added

I don't really have much time today so I'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Take your time - we're not going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Renown

• again to carry the Duke and Duchess of Connaught MOS:EGG here.
  • No it's not - there was only the one couple of carried the title, so it's not unclear to whom the link refers
• Pipe India to British India.
  • Done

Majestic class

• Pipe Russia and Japanese to the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan.
  • Done
• Japanese Shikishima class and the battleship Mikasa Please clarify that these class were battleships.
  • Isn't it clear from the context? We're talking about how the Majestics were the benchmark of battleship design, and if the Shikishimas were copies, what else could they be?
• Like in the Centurion class section may be better clarification of the image is needed?
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this
    • Is it possible to give more info in the image and let's say in the others too? An image with only the name of the ship is a little bit vague; I also am not an expert in the images policy but in general, they look odd to me.
      • Many of them don't have a year - the caption for the photo of Mars is, helpfully, "between 1896 and 1920".

The rest will continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Canopus class

• and Ocean supported operations in Africa British Africa is pretty big if you ask the Britons themselves can you at least clarify where or in which part of the continent.
  • Yes, and they operated all throughout Africa - Albion patrolled South Africa and took part in the campaign against German Southwest Africa

Formidable class

• serving in succession in the Channel Link Channel and unlink English Channel next.
  • That "Channel" refers to the Channel Fleet, which is already linked
• Don't understand why HMS Formidable isn't at the top in the table?
  • No doubt whoever created the table initially ordered it on which vessel was commissioned first, and I didn't notice that when I redid it

Gonna continue and I'll also reply to the rest of your responses tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

King Edward VII class

• It's strange that not all the ships are mentioned in the section's body?
  • They generally operated as a single unit, and it's much easier (and tidier) to simply refer to them as a squadron, rather than listing them out individually. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment from PMG

Is link to Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history really needed in this list? I am asking because I don`t see additional value - there is References section in article. PMG (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but I also don't think it's doing any harm - it was in the See also section when I rewrote the list, so I left it. It isn't intended to function as a replacement to the References section, though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Woody

I haven't got much to say to be fair. The images add to the text and are suitably licensed. The references are of good quality. The prose flows well. I've got a couple of comments:

• I tweaked a wikilink in the Sovereign Class to go to Cretan State via a redirect with potential.
• In Majestic Class, what is the 1892 programme? The Renown section says 1892 construction programme but the concept of a programme or construction programme is never explained (via a wikilink or otherwise in the text).
  • Just the work that was budgeted for that year - major construction programs were generally laid out in laws (whether the Naval Defence Act 1889, the German Naval Laws, etc.), but of course not all ships of a given program could be built at the same time (or in a single year) so the work would be spread out over several fiscal years
• I don't see the point of the see also section. I've been of the mind that a comprehensive article doesn't need a see also section as the links should be in the article. I don't see what the Bibliography article adds and all of the ship name lists are in the navigation box in the lead.
  • That's a fair point - removed.

That's it from me. A good read. Woody (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Woody. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, nothing more from me after another read through so switched to support. Woody (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from The ed17

• Support after a few edits to the lead. Please check them for accuracy! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me - thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Old Wykehamists

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

;Quick comments The lead is far too short and should be expanded. This could be done by giving a bit more background about the school and its history, and then writing about how the school has produced N archbishops, including so-and-so and so-and-so, N cabinet ministers including these people, and so on. Also, the VC winners could be highlighted. Thank you for these helpful suggestions; I've had a go at implementing all of them. It's quite hard to know what and how much to say; it seemed sensible to focus on the school's most distinctive traditions, but there are many other possibilities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Looks really good now, although it might be worth adding something (if it can be reliably sourced) about the increase in pupil numbers from the original 70 (I presume that the increase in size is one of the main reasons why there are so many more notable alumni from the last couple of centuries. This could maybe go in place of the bit about Notions, which is probably the best least connected to the pupils/alumni -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Having a bit which says "see also this category" as prose in the lead is not appropriate. This should be a "See also" section at the bottom, just above the notes. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) I spotted quite a few entries which have no reference. Fielded all the unreffed cricketers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) If the grouping is by birth date then Alex Chalk and Charles Edwards are both in the wrong section - check for any others Fixed them; checked and sorted the whole list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) I only had time for the briefest of glances but that's what jumped out at me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Further comments James Eyre (judge) => James Eyre, judge Done. I would put the "brother" note against Anthony Trollope given that he appears second Anthony T. is by far the better known (hence the note), so I've just removed it, hope that's ok. Ashley Eden - is "Colonial Administrator" an official title? If not then it shouldn't have capitals. Done. Jack White, Trade Union organizer => Jack White, Trade Union organiser Done. Birth and death dates are given for Walter Parke but not for anyone else, which seems a bit random Removed. Last two people in the 1940s section have different dashes in their date ranges Fixed. Think that's all I have right now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Many thanks, done all those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

collapsed details

Hi Chiswick Chap - long time no see, hope you're keeping well. You're certainly keeping busy with this labour of love. It certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind and I'm pleased to support. A few comments below that don't stand in the way of this. Many thanks for the comments and support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Order of names within century what order are you following? It's not chronological as, for example, Richard Pace, c.1482, postdates William Horman, c.1440, who sits below him. Would alphabetical not be easiest for the reader? It's meant to be chronological; Pace's estimated date has changed. Reordered those two. Sixteenth century John White/Thomas Bilson/Arthur Lake - not sure why their bishoprics need capitalisation? You don't elsewhere. Fixed. Henry Marten - Link Judge of Admiralty? Done. Eighteenth century William Douglas, Duke of Queensbury - much though I like rake and gambler, it’s not really an occupation! Aristocrat and gambler? Landowner and gambler? Fixed. Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth - not actionable, but interesting Winchester's produced only one PM, and that the ineffectual Viscount Sidmouth. "Pitt is to Addington...." Actually, you could action it by replacing the image of Williamson with that of the school's only PM (see Images below)! Noted. 1820-1839 James Dewar - link Crimean War? Done. Philip Lutley Sclater - link Zoogeographer? It's a new one on me. Linked. 1840-1859 Samuel Rolles Driver - lower case Biblical? Done. Leonard Howell - link Wanderers? Done. 1860-1869 Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford - you've got him in twice, here and in the 1880-1889 section (10th down). He belongs here, I think, but I think you should put in the notability you have below, i.e. governor and viceroy. Good catch, fixed. Down to 1870. Will need to stop and come back. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC) On we go. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1870-1879 Jack White - being picky and old-fashioned, I'd go for uncapitalized trades union organiser but our main article doesn't so feel free to ignore. Noted. 1880-1889 George Mallory - mountaineer who died on Mount Everest? Said on first three British expeditions there. 1890-1899 John William Fisher Beaumont - don't think The Bombay High Court needs a capital T. Done. Spencer Leeson, Headmaster and bishop - as above for H Godfrey Rolles Driver, Biblical scholar as above for B 1910-1919 George Jellicoe, aka Viscount Brocas, soldier-statesman, businessman-diplomat - not sure about these hyphenated jobs. Just commas? Done. 1920-1929 Sir Jack Boles - link National Trust? Done. 1930-1939 Alasdair Milne - link BBC? Done. Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire - link Berkshire Earldom as well as Suffolk? Done. Victoria Cross and George Cross holders "one Old Wykehamist won the George Cross in military circumstances and another Old Wykehamist won the George Medal in military circumstances" - the close repetition is a bit jarring. Perhaps, "one Wykehamist won the George Cross and one the George Medal, both in military circumstances/situations"? Thanks, done. And, any reason you're not listing the George Medal holder? I'm assuming he's in here somewhere, List of recipients of the George Medal, 1940s? Although he may not have an article, he surely warrants a mention and minimal redlinks in lists are permissible. Let's think about that one, but good to hear that it's feasible at a pinch. Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Images Richard Williamson (bishop) - absolutely get that Wikipedia's not censored but, given the abundance of choice, does this repellent, anti-Semitic nut job deserve the prominence of a photo? My feeling is that we show the rough with the smooth. Absolutely take the point. I was pleased to include John Vassall, the gay spy, in the list of my alma mater’s alumni! But Vassall’s dead and Williamson is, at least to my mind, regrettably alive. And, while I’d of course agree he should be in the list, the choice of photos is selective. Anyway, I’ve made my point and it’s not a criteria issue, so I’ll just get back to the list. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

(WikiCup entry)

Resolved comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What is "Chancellor of England"? Is there a link? A historic role roughly at Prime Minister level, and it seems the answer is no. "New College, Oxford in" comma after Oxon. Done. Our article on the college says it was founded in 1379, not 1382. Said "establish". "give an education for" give ... to or provide ... for. Done. Might be worth linking "boarding house". Probably best not, as this is a specialised kind. "By the 21st century" well, I think you really mean as of 2020? OK, but that is of course an immediate hostage to the clock. Would Field marshal (United Kingdom) be a more appropriate link or were there foreign FMs? Updated link. Bomber Command should probably be piped to the RAF one, fortunately Fighter Command redirects. Done. It looks like you're linking positions with specific articles, so you could link List of Head Masters of Eton College. Done. I would link Gunpowder Plot as this is well-known to Brits but probably not outside these shores. Done. You exclude "Sir" in Fiennes' link in the lead but include it Ryves in the list (for example). Be consistent. Honorifics removed throughout. Suggest you use the UK-specific Poet laureate article rather than the general one. Done. Likewise Prime Minister. Done. "of Winchester," Winchester what? Fixed. Explain ZSL before using abbreviation. Done. Wingfield Fiennes article lists him as a clergyman as well as a cricketer... Done. As does Copleston. Done. And Haygarth is noted as magistrate. Etc. Etc. Done. You don't link cricketer but you do footballer, what's the strategy? Unlinked. "Savoy Opera producer," no need for capital O. Fixed. You note FRS for Hardy and no-one else, why? Removed. Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum has an article. Ingenious, linked. "Irish Citizens Army" no s. Fixed, a case where "helpful" redirects aren't. "Trade Union organiser" why the capitals? Removed. Check image captions, complete sentences (e.g. Dowding) take a full stop. Added. Darling is noted as a "first-class" cricketer, many of the others were too, but not noted, why? Removed. You link "mountaineer" but not "postmaster-general", I would do it the other way round. Done. Link Proust. Done. Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has an article. Linked. As does Marshal of the Royal Air Force. Done. Bombay High Court could be linked. Done. Sinclair's honorifics (KCMG CB OBE) are mentioned, was he the only one to get any? What's the strategy here? Removed. Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) could be linked. Done. Note A is unreferenced. Replaced note with book ref. Multiple pages in references should be pp. not p. Fixed. Check all possible field are complete for the refs, e.g. ref 426 is missing the author, 433 has no publisher/work. Fixed. CricketArchive or CricketArchive? Formatted as "website=" And not all CricketArchive links have the subscription required padlock showing. Fixed. Spaced hyphens should be replaced with spaced en-dashes, e.g. ref 88. Fixed. Philip French has an article so can be authorlinked in the ref. Added. BBC News links almost invariably have a publication date, e.g. ref 332 is missing 26 January 2003. Added. Sometimes it's The Telegraph and sometimes it's The Daily Telegraph, be consistent. Daily it is. Sometimes you link the work/publisher, sometimes not. Pick a consistent approach to this. Links removed. ISBNs should be consistently formatted. Done. That's all I have on a quick run-through. I only spot-checked a handful of references, so there's plenty more to look at. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Many thanks, very useful. Done all of these to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)}} More from TRM Huge amount of whitespace at the beginning, consider limiting the table of contents to level-2 headings only. Thank you for the suggestion. However, the table can be collapsed just by pressing "hide", and the navigation is certainly valuable. Well it's a shame because it's off-putting when loaded. And you do say in the lead "The individuals listed are classified by century of birth" so you could limit the TOC to centuries and not mis-lead anyone. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC) And after 15 years, I've just discovered that if you hide a TOC on one page, it hides it on every page, and that is very unhelpful! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Yes it is an odd gadget. You could have a tinker with {{horizontal TOC}}? That way you get a TOC but all the whitespace goes away and we're left with an elegant looking article! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) I played with it, hmm. I'd not have thought this really an FLC matter but for the sake of peace and harmony, the vertical TOC|limit=2 is certainly better than the horizontal variety so let's go with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Well I'm looking at WP:WIAFL 5a "visual appeal". And for me, the massive whitespace left with the regular TOC was completely visually unappealing. But glad we could find a compromise! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC) The following comments are usually linked to a specific reference, but the theory behind each comment should be applied across all references, I don't aim to repeat myself too many times.... Noted. Ref 27 needs en-dash in year range. Done. Several online sources don't have accessdates, several do, what's the strategy? Checked all, fixed. Ref 32 needs en-dash. Check others, I won't note this again. Done. Britannica is sometimes linked and sometimes attributed to the CUP. Be consistent with each approach. Checked and fixed. Ref 52, isn't that a work? Done. Ref 58 has neither a publication date nor an accessdate. I would expect at least one of those, check all the other sources for this issue. Done, and checked. It is the only ref using that database template. Ref 104, publisher is OUP, no? Check other uses. Added (so we now say Oxford Index and OUP). There was only one other instance. Ref 111 etc, spaced hyphen should be an en-dash. Checked and fixed all. Ref 141, needs space after p. for consistency. Done. Refs 142 to 144 are the same, re-use. Merged. Ref 146 year ranges need en-dashes, check others. Fixed. Ref 168, avoid SHOUTING, check others. Fixed all. Ref 172 appears to be missing a publication title? Title was correct, added Publisher. Ref 231 link Burke's Peerage. Why is it repeated? Removed repet. Ref 238, isn't Who's Who a work? Fixed. Ref 245, 255, 260 etc. en-dash and be consistent with the formatting of Wisden and ESPNcricinfo. Fixed and checked. Ref 250, could link T. S. Eliot, and these days we space the initials. Done both. Ref 253, notable writer Clive James can be linked. Check other authors. Linked several. Ref 272, space before semi-colon? Fixed. Ref 275, what makes winchestercollegeatwar.com RS? Fixed; publisher is Winchester College. Ref 278, The Guardian is a work. Fixed. Ref 282, date range needs en-dash. Fixed. Ref 315, link National Oceanography Centre. Done. Ref 416, what makes rookiemag.com RS? Replaced ref (The Guardian) Refs 408, 417, 418, missing publisher/author information. Added. That's enough for a first pass on the refs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC) More from TRM ii Ref 18, isn't the The Catholic Encyclopedia a work? Fixed. And per ref 19, does it have "The" in the title? Fixed. Ref 22, 74, 166 etc, en-dash in year range. Fixed. Ref 24, etc, book refs need page numbers. Replaced ref. Ref 48, etc, be consistent with the linking. Linked. Ref 181, 219, 379 SHOUTING. Fixed. Refs 193 & 194 are the same. Merged refs. Ref 214, what is Ran? Should it be Rank? Fixed. Ref 242, 252, Cricinfo format. Fixed. Ref 250 malformed. Fixed. Ref 279 should be en-dash in date range. Done. Ref 212 vs Ref 217 vs Ref 307. All seem to be the same work but each formatted differently. Fixed. Ref 341, link Debrett's. Done. Ref 244 vs Ref 209 vs Ref 384 vs Ref 262 vs Ref 343 etc. All seem to be the same origin but all formatted differently. Fixed. Ref 360 no longer works. Replaced ref. Ref 370, 389, Debrett's wasn't italicised previously. Fixed. Ref 392, is The Gazette really The Gazette? Fixed. Ref 397, 414, publisher? Fixed. Ref 406, en-dash in title. Done. Ref 420, Telegraph in italics. Fixed. Ref 421, CricketArchive was italics before. Fixed. Ref 433, 436, publisher/work? Fixed, replaced ref 436 with Winchester College source. Ref 439, ISBN different format. Fixed. Ref 442, RS? Replaced ref with book. Ref 443, previously linked Gazette. This is automatically formatted by Template:London Gazette; perhaps the template doesn't link supplement entries. Refs 436 and 437 seem to do it just fine... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC) The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Indeed. There was a "nolink" parameter in there. Another small mystery resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Is the "Chancellor" in the lead perhaps Lord Chancellor? Wykeham is listed at List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers after all.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Good find, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support my myriad comments addressed to my satisfaction, very good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

One last question, how do you know this list is comprehensive? Are you sure that other alumni haven't been overlooked? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The list cannot be comprehensive as the boundary of notability is constantly being explored with new articles on Old Wykehamists of long ago, and as new members clearly worthy of note (like Rishi Sunak) continually appear. However, the list is mature in the sense that it has been developed over many years now, and has been contributed to by many hands. If Wikipedia had a core of 'specially notable' people, they would certainly all be present. Or to put it another way, if another encyclopedia developed such a list, it would be substantially similar to this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand, so that means it really should have {{incomplete list}} added to it I believe. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

All right, done, that is formally correct but it does seem a bit drastic! Probably others will discuss the matter 'in slow time'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Woody

This is following on from TRM above, but I'm sorry at the moment I have some concerns surrounding the scope and how comprehensive the list is: so FL criteria namely 2 and 3.

• FLCR2: "It... defines the scope and inclusion criteria." The lead doesn't define the scope and inclusion criteria for the list. What are you defining as notable, or in terms of the lead what do you take as "distinguishing themselves?" Where is the line drawn? This becomes particularly pertinent for say sportspeople, is it playing one game in a top league, is it winning the league, is it playing internationally? Which barristers are you including? Which politicians: cabinet level, MPs, Privy Counsellors? etc

Only those at the highest level, as defined in the criteria (see below): cabinet level politicians; generals in the army; royal academicians in the arts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• FLCR3: It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. I simply can't see how an article with a "this list is incomplete" meets 3a.

That tag is because of TRM above, and against my clear instincts. The list is as comprehensive as much careful editing by many hands could make it. I think that with the new criteria, we should be able to remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

General comment

• We don't normally have categories in see also sections. The list is already in the category and so anyone wanting to go to the category would go to the normal category link,

Fair enough, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this article and having almost 400 correctly formatted citations is in itself an achievement. I can't support at the moment though as I don't feel it has an adequate scope and inclusion criteria. Put another way, what justifies someone's inclusion in this list vice the 1,386 people in Category:People educated at Winchester College? Woody (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course you are free to hold that view, which I'm sorry to hear. I and other editors have included the Old Wykehamists who have distinguished themselves as described in the introduction and the body of the list. There are marginally-notable people who have had articles created for them; obviously I'm not responsible for the notability criteria. Attempting to include all is, I'm sure, pointless; if that's really the only way any such list can be defined then of course it's impossible to bring any such school list to FLC, which I think would be a sad outcome. Very few schools are as old as Winchester, and few have had such a distinguished list of former pupils. The list as it stands is of clear encyclopedic interest whether readers are interested in education, politics, or any of the fields in which Old Wykehamists have distinguished themselves. I doubt if I can do anything to convince you, though if there is anything you want done, feel free to say what it is and I'll address it, but perhaps other editors will feel able to take this list as it is, a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree that it is a good list and it is certainly a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia but it doesn’t meet the Featured List Criteria, namely 2 and 3. I certainly don’t think that all of the people who have an article on Wikipedia should be on this list. My issue is that this list, as it stands, does not have an objective set of inclusion criteria. There is nothing to say why they are included, what distinguishes one cricketer from another, or one politician from another? What distinguishes them? If you develop an objective criteria section in the lead then I would support it as it would then meet the FLC criteria. Something along the lines of: national recognition; for politicians: members of the privy council or cabinet post; for sportspeople: represented their country etc. Woody (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's do that; I've extended the lead as you propose. Happy to tweak the criteria slightly but the level is I think pretty clear. Do you think for sportspeople it's enough to represent the country once, or would three times be better? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I level is clearer but not a defined criteria yet. Nor do some of the people in the list meet the newly established criteria. From the first 2 I checked: why is Lionel Johnson included? Same for Thomas Arnold? In terms of representing their country, that is up to you but 1 seems fine, particularly given the time scale (ie 100 years ago they played significantly less games than the modern era). Woody (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Woody: Fair enough. I've checked through the list and removed 78 individuals using the new criteria. On those examples, happy to drop Johnson as a minor poet, but Arnold was one of the great headmasters with a national reputation. Happy to sharpen the criteria further, if you'll let me know what needs adjusting or clarifying. For early sportsmen, one competitive match may be enough, but that must be for a county team or above; playing a few times for their university is not sufficient (specially if it's out for a duck). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support on images from Shearonink

• All of the 18th Century and earlier portraits/Commons files lack the applicable/pertinent/specific United States public domain tags, the one that seems applicable would be {{PD-US-expired}}.

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Many of the 19th Century images lack a/an US public domain tag.

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• All of the photos after Christopher Miles have appropriate tagging/licensing information.

Noted.

• The Christopher Miles image is problematic because of the uploader's claimed authorship. Merlin Energy claims ownership of 2 different Miles images, separated by 33 years...which is indeed possible but seems highly improbable...

Removed, just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keeping accessibility & MOS:ACCIM in mind all the images are lacking alt text.

Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gosh that was a bit of work, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Much improved, however these 2 images still lack alt-text: William of Wykeham, Sir Henry Wotton. Once the alt-text for these two images is taken care of I will be able to support re: images. Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Shearonink (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [6].

---

List of largest cruise ships

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: I've vastly expanded the lead since late February, and clarified all of the column headings. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Some of it is decent, but a lot is just generic information about cruise ships. "Operators of cruise ships are known as cruise lines, which are companies that market cruises to the public." "Cruise ships require electricity for powering both hotel services and for propulsion." Certain brands being for party ships or classic elegance is irrelevant to this list – Holland America isn't even in the list! The WP:LEAD should focus more on summarizing the rest of the article, so it should relate explicitly how the biggest ships are the party ships, or perhaps which new ones use LNG. The intros to the sections are great, but if I just read the lead without knowing the page's title, I'd have no idea what was coming next. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: Thanks for the feedback. Some of that text was copied from Cruise ship with the intention to reword it to relate to ship size, but I seem to have forgotted to do that in some places. I have updated it to try to tie it back to size -- for example, the intention with the Carnival vs. Holland America was to point out that Carnival has larger ships while Holland America has smaller ones. With the electricity sentence, the goal was to point out that using electricity for propulsion has allowed ships to grow longer, but I hadn't made that clear (it should be fixed now). I had also intended to point out that the switch to LNG required larger ships since the fuel takes up more space, but upon reviewing the sources, it turns out that there are ways around that, so I removed the LNG mention from the lead. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The paragraph above the first table is not really a summary of the table, but it appears to be footnotes of the table itself, but in paragraph form? Suggest moving "Year indicates the year the ship originally entered service, which in some cases may not the year it started service under the listed cruise line or with the listed name." to a footnote beside the year column. The remainder can be a footnote for appropriate sections for example "Registro Italiano Navale only list length between perpendiculars, not length overall," should be a footnote for every ship in which this is true.
• Phrases like "The following is a list of cruise ships" is no longer considered acceptable for featured lists as it is tautological, and should be removed. The entire second paragraph reads like the same description of the table itself, not the contents of the table, which is what the lead should be. Once this information about the list is moved to footnotes or legend where appropriate. After this there is not much of a lead left. A lead should summarize the contents of the table. And needs quite a bit of work.
• The on order section requires similar work, there is no paragraph describing the contents of the list, just another footnote related comment.

Overall, there is a serious lack of information in the lead, and in the two subsections, both of which are required for featured list. Remember the lead is to provide context, and summarize the contents of the table, not instructions on how to read the table itself.

Oppose for now, as there requires quite a bit of work to bring this up to standards. The table itself is pretty good though, so I can scratch my opposition once the lead and two subsections contains some prose. Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. One quick question: WP:SALLEAD says that the lead should make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Do you have any advice on doing this without a "The following is a list of..." sentence? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• That link provides a checklist of exactly what is missing...!

• begin with a lead section that summarizes its content (maybe what is the largest current ship, or any other ship of significance, you need to talk about the ships from your tables, especially in relation to their size)
• provides any necessary background information (this could involve history)
• gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages)
• Makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected - to answer your question, something like this "There are x cruise ships over x tonnes currently in service" is better than "this is a list of cruise ships over x tonnes". This should be done before each table.

Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've added text to the lead and to the two sections. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is much better now! I strike my oppose. I would add two things however. First, I would put an image of the world's largest cruise ship right at the top (with a caption stating it's name and the fact that it's the largest, with alt-text), and I would add one line at the end of the first paragraph of the lead mentioning that Symphony of the Seas is the largest and give its gross tonnage. Both these changes don't warrant an oppose so I will preemptively Support. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus:  Done Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed the year ordered does not sort properly due to the addition of "May". There are date template that I believe can fix this. Mattximus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Mattximus: There are templates such as {{Date table sorting}}, but in this case I just removed the month, since the column is titled "Year (planned)", not "Date (planned)". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead I would merge the first two paragraphs, given that the first is only two sentences long. Wouldn't hurt to put (GT) after gross tonnage, given that you then go on to use the initials exclusively Comma after mid-1990s should be a semi-colon Think that's all I have on the lead. Will get to the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Most of my comments on the table relate to the headings: Ship Name does not need a capital N There's a stray full stop after Length Overall, which shouldn't be there Is there a way to clarify (either via a footnote or a wikilink) what "beam" (and its two "sub-types" ) are? Same for "staterooms" - does that just mean passenger cabins? Also what are the two types of capacity? I am not hugely familiar with cruise ships (although I have been on one cruise!) and don't know precisely what these terms mean...... Some cells are blank - is this because the info is unknown? Note c on both tables aren't complete sentences so don't need a full stop Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I think I've resolved most of these. I added wikilinks and footnotes as appropriate, and marked the blank cells as unknown.

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments (WikiCup entry) "ocean liner" is overlinked. No need to link basic words like "hotel". "The current largest " really should be "As of June 2020, the largest..." No need to link basic words like "company". "over 120,000 in " GT presuambly? "over 120,000 in service. The first ships to exceed 120,000 GT" repetitive. "the next largest " next-largest. Avoid use of hash to mean "number", per MOS:HASH. I think the row scope should be on the ship name, not the number. Image column doesn't need to be sortable, I mean what is it actually sorting against?? "47.778 m" are we really measuring to the nearest mm?? Masses of overlinks in the "On order" section e.g. RCI, RCCL, Dream Cruises, MSC Cruises etc. Use the tool to identify and eliminate them all. Should World- and Triton- be in italics? Same comments about HASH and row scope apply to the on-order table. Update and format ISBNs consistently. AVOID SHOUTING in ref titles. That's all I have on a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the feedback. I took care of most of those, with a few exceptions. First, I was under the impression that "scope" could only apply to header cells, are you saying that the ship names should be made into header cells? Second, per WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship class names in articles, class names are only italicized when they are named after a ship, and there is no MSC World or Disney Triton. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I'm saying the ship names should be the cells which take the row scope. See this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) It's the "key item" that needs the scope, and that's the actual ship, not the rank. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I wasn't aware you could do that. It should be all set now. Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 01:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support really nice piece of work, well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review – The referencing requires quite a bit of cleanup work before this can be promoted: What makes any of the following reliable sources? Travel industry dictionary (ref 17) Cruise Fever (ref 167) Cruiser Critic (ref 171) References 8, 10, and 16 are missing page numbers. The formatting of ref 15 is broken. The capitalization of Cruise Industry News is inconsistent in refs 19 and 20. Ref 193 also has a different style. These should be made consistent throughout the referencing. The titles of refs 174 and 190 have all caps that need removal per the Manual of Style. Refs 30 and 170 are missing publishers. Meyer Werft is fully capitalized almost everywhere I see it, in both ref titles and publishers, which is not the case in our article on the topic. All caps are discouraged by the Manual of Style, so I recommend taking them out when necessary. The second word of USA Today probably shouldn't be capitalized in ref 160. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks Giants2008. I cleaned up the issues you highlighted: Reliable sources: Removed that reference. References generally aren't needed for dictionary definitions of words. I couldn't find a better reference for that sentence, so I reworded it and added citations to the cruise line and to The Telegraph Replaced with the Orlando Sentinel Added page numbers for refs 8 and 16. I was only able to get ahold of an ebook copy of Ref 10 so I used the chapter name. Fixed Ref 15 Changed to "Cruise Industry News" everywhere. Changed 174 and 190 to Title Case Added work and publisher to ref 30, changed ref 170 to use {{cite press release}} and added publisher Changed to "Meyer Werft" throughout Changed to "USA Today" throughout --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 23:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I checked all of the fixes above, and the only outstanding issue I see is that ref 174 still has the all caps in part of the title. Nice work fixing the rest of the concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1967

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

With 46 of these lists already having reached FL status, here's the next in the sequence. In this particular year, the two main claimants for the title of "first lady of country music" both reached the top of the chart for the first time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments – I only found one thing: Although I tend to place commas before "and" in a list, I understand that it's just a matter of preference. I noticed that in the two colon lists in the third paragraph have these commas. It would be best for consistency if they were removed, unless there is a rule for colon-lists which I am unaware of. Another great article. ~ HAL333 17:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: Apologies, but I seem to be having a bit of a dumb moment, and I can't figure out which comma(s) you would like me to remove - could you clarify? After which word(s) should there be no comma? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude No Worries, I could have been a little more clear. "Three other artists reached number one for the first time in 1967: Wynn Stewart, who topped the chart for two weeks in June with "It's Such a Pretty World Today", Leon Ashley, who spent a single week in the top spot in September with "Laura (What's He Got That I Ain't Got)", and Jan Howard, who ended the year at number one with "For Loving You", a duet with Bill Anderson." --> The comma after "Laura (What's He Got That I Ain't Got)" But that comma closes the clause that starts "who spent a single week". Removing it would make it read "Leon Ashley, who spent a single week in the top spot in September with "Laura (What's He Got That I Ain't Got)" and Jan Howard", thereby implying that he spent a week at number one with Jan Howard. "In addition to James, three other artists each took three different singles to number one in 1967: David Houston, who topped the chart with "With One Exception" and "You Mean the World to Me" as well as his duet with Tammy Wynette, and Buck Owens, who reached the top spot with "Where Does the Good Times Go", "Sam's Place" and "Your Tender Loving Care"." --> The comma after "Tammy Wynette" should be removed. Same as above, except it would make it sound like he did a duet with both Tammy and Buck.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC) My reasoning for this is consistency. Either all of the lists should have commas before the "and", or none. I also just realized that the removal of the comma in the second list would make it somewhat confusing. It might have to be reworded. And as I noted before, there may be some grammatical rule regarding commas in colon lists and I may be all wrong in this matter. ~ HAL333 21:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: - for ease, I have re-worded most of that paragraph..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Another great article. ~ HAL333 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments – I made one minor edit to the tense in the last sentence ("five weeks in"). In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption should be included. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of " Read the prose in detail – looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) @Bloom6132: - caption added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support – looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support — Nice work. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Boy Scout calendar illustrations

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been a 6 year long labor of love to research this article and try to create as many articles about the paintings as possible. I think the list of paintings meets the criteria --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment Refs should be centred, and where there is more than one on a row they should be in correct numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Further comments "Between 1925 and 1976, Norman Rockwell created a painting" - this technically means that he created just one painting at some point in those 50 years. You should change "a painting" to "a series of paintings" Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "After seeing the results of the BSA's use of Norman Rockwell's paintings for The Red Cross Magazine that were donated to the organization by the American Red Cross in recruiting" - blimey, this gets a bit confusing. I think what you meant to say is "After seeing the impact on recruitment of the BSA's use of Rockwell's paintings for The Red Cross Magazine that were donated to the organization by the American Red Cross" but to be honest the sentence is very hard to understand and I may be misinterpreting it........ I'm sorry my prose is lacking. You are spot on --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "they wondered if " - who's "they"? fixed --Guerillero | Parez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "bandaging the foot of spaniel puppy under the eye its mother" => "bandaging the foot of a spaniel puppy under the eye of its mother" Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "the BSA, Brown & Bigelow, Rockwell worked out a deal" => "the BSA, Brown & Bigelow, and Rockwell worked out a deal" Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "so it could be the cover" => "so that it could be the cover" Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "Early in the year, the BSA and Rockwell would both pitch ideas for the next painting and decide on the theme." - this seems to contradict the earlier claim that the paintings were done "years in advance" Paintings were done 2 years in advance, but one was created every year starting in January. How would this be the best to say this? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) So, to confirm, Rockwell would have begun work on the painting for (say) the 1935 calendar in January 1933, ahead of the publication of the calendar in (I presume) the autumn of 1934? Have I understand correctly? If so, I would change the sentence in the second paragraph to "Rockwell would begin his painting around 18 months in advance" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Sorry for the wait. I was working on The Minute Man which is at FAC. I clarified the timeline. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) "After the painting was "finished,"" - I don't think the use of quote marks is appropriate. Probably better to say "After the initial draft of the painting was finished," Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Any note in the table that isn't a complete sentence should not have a full stop. I put semicolons between two fragments --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 1929 note seems to have a line break in the middle - remove this Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Same for 1951 Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) If the title column is to be sortable, then any entry that starts with "A" or "The" need to sort on the next word Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) "the cover of the various handbooks" => "the covers of the various handbooks" Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC) One final question - you say above that you tried "to create as many articles about the paintings as possible", but only three titles are bluelinked out of 49. have you definitely linked all the paintings that have articles? Yes, the paintings were widely distributed and are iconic pictures of Scouting in the US, but are mostly ignored by art historians. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me. This was an interesting read..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aza24

I'm really surprised to see only 1 image in the list. Since this is a list of illustrations, having every single one would be ideal, I'm wondering why there aren't? At the very least there should be 4–5. All other paintings are copyrighted, and the NFCC forbids the use of copyrighted materials as a part of a list. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) While I recognize that you mentioned the illustrations weren't given in 1928 and 1930, I would add this to the table, similar to how List of winners of the Boston Marathon mentions in the table that it was canceled in 2020. A lot of people who go to this list might go straight to the table and just be confused over why those 2 years are missing. Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Why are "Spirit of America" and "Beyond the Easel" redlinked/linked at all? I was going to write about them at some point in the future. Removed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) How can the works be referred to differently as "paintings" and as "illustrations"? It has to do with who the art world sees as a "real" artist. Since Rockwell was commissioned to portray a client's product in a positive light, he is considered to be an illustrator, not an artist. However, the medium was always oils on canvas, so the produced work is a painting. This article was recommended to me by a friend who writes about Magic: the Gathering illustrations/art and how the line between the two is perceived. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Shouldn't "We, too, have a Job to Do" be "We, too, Have a Job to Do"? Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Ref 33 seems to have the wrong page number. (Its in the thousands – the others from that author are in the 100s) Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) It looks like Joseph Csatari can be linked in the sources with "|authorlink1=Joseph Csatari" This a a stylistic decision and isn't required --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Like above, William Hillcourt can be linked too (The other authors don't seem to have authorlinks) This a a stylistic decision and isn't required --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC) I don't think I can support without these issues resolved - Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) @Aza24: Let me know what you think --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I knew there had to be a good reason for the lack of images, copyright makes complete sense. You have my support. Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 16:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Intending to claim WikiCup points for this review.) No major concerns, but I've done my best to find nits to pick: Between 1925 and 1976, Norman Rockwell created a series of paintings ... — But the first one was created in (or before) 1918, right? Might be good to rephrase. How about Between 1925 and 1976, Brown & Bigelow released a yearly calendar for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) featuring a yearly painting by illustrator Norman Rockwell. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Looks good except I'd remove the second "yearly" ("a yearly calendar featuring ... a painting" makes this clear). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Up to your discretion but might be good to introduce who Norman Rockwell is for readers who aren't familiar, though there's not much to say that you wouldn't get from context. I'd just suggest ".... illustrator Norman Rockwell ...". It would be more an indication of absence of information to the reader (was he well-known in another context? No), which can still be important. Sounds good --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Forgive me if I'm being thick, but it's one painting per year, and the calendar has what? These paintings on the front cover and then one image per month inside? Something else? Before the 60s, calendars had a single image for the year with a tear-off portion at the bottom for each month. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Is it possible to add a brief description of the calendars, before and after the 60s if there are suitable references? — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC) I will re-read over some sources, but they seem to be so common that authors expect that you know what they look like. They look like this, btw --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) @Bilorv: I found a source! Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Rockwell would paint his painting years in advance – paintings? Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) I would have expected italics in The Washington Times and Dallas Art News but not The Children's Museum of Indianapolis (which should use a straight apostrophe per MOS:CURLY). Mistakes or am I misunderstanding? Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) I've been getting this wrong until recently, and I might still be wrong, but MOS:ALT says The alt text is read out by screen readers just before the caption, so try to avoid having the same details in both and later suggests the alternative |alt=refer to caption. (In regards to the infobox image.) Another option might be |alt=A Good Scout. I think the point is just to bypass the full filename by giving a 'title'-like description. I skimped on this one. I replaced it with A Boy Scout in a dark tan uniform with a matching wide brimmed hat bandages the foot of a spaniel puppy while being watched by its mother --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 1951 says The only time an Air Scout was included in an Rockwell painting. This seems to be the only fact in "Notes" not about a painting being published elsewhere or its current ownership. Is it particularly significant? Presumably lots of verifiable facts about other paintings are omitted (such as those on the articles for specific paintings). Have you thought about removing it for consistency? Removed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Can you walk me through what the NYT source verifies and where? Presumably Used as the cover art for the 4th edition of the Boy Scout Handbook but I can't see where it shows this. I remember there was a caption that mentions this, but it looks lost. I replaced with Moline 1979, p. 134 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC) And some positive feedback: The Washington Times is not a high-quality source for politics, but fine for simple statements of facts like how it's used here. Other sources are high-quality. Thorough list with a clear scope and completeness – meets 3(a). Good information and summary style in the lead. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 22:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: thanks for the quick replies, and the list looks very good in every aspect. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [9].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Giorgio Moroder

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article mentions all the most important awards won by the artist and it meets the criteria. Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

;Comments FLs don't start "This is a list...." Could do with an additional paragraph summarising Moroder's career/works to give some background. "for the Daft Punk's album" => "for Daft Punk's album" "In 2005, Moroder was named a Commendatore Ordine al Merito della Repubblica Italiana,[2] and in 2010, the Italian city of Bolzano awarded him the Grande Ordine al Merito della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano" - neither of these seems to be in the table. Don't think the first column in the table should be centre-aligned Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Done. I decided to separate awards from other honors. --Leo Mercury (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Further comments "Giorgio Moroder is one of the precursors" - precursor is not the right word here, because it means something that comes before something, so it suggests that Moroder came before EDM, which isn't really accurate. I would say "one of the originators" "He has also been dubbed as the" => "He has also been dubbed the" "In the course of his carreer" - too many Rs in career "His other two awards were for the Donna Summer's single" => "His other two awards were for Donna Summer's single" "In 2011, he was awarded with the Lifetime Achievement Award" - to avoid repeating "award", suggest saying "In 2011, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award" Headings on the Recipients and Category columns in the table are the wrong way round Now that you have made the table sortable (it wasn't when I looked before) you need to make some fixes to the sorting. Anything starting with a " should sort on the first word, as if the " isn't there. Moroder's name should sort under M, not G. And The NeverEnding Story should sort under N for Never. That's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) Done. Thanks for all the corrections. --Leo Mercury (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments –

• Blisspop (reference 4) doesn't sound like that reliable of a source. Do we even need it, given that two other sources support his nickname?
• The all caps in ref 6 should be removed.
• The book used in ref 15 could use a page number for verifiability purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. I did not put a page number for ref 15 (now ref 14), instead I used a Google Books link that brings you directly to the quoted page. --Leo Mercury (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support ~ HAL333 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Intending to claim WikiCup points for this review.) his work with synthesizers heavily influenced several music genres such as new wave, house and techno music – I don't see the Time source mentioning these genres (unless they're mentioned by synonyms that I don't understand).  Done I found a better source. In the refs, what's the reason that some website are described by URLs and some by the website name? Why is "Quirinale.it" not in italics?  Done The table captions seem a little unconventional to me—I believe the purpose is so that people who use screen readers understand the purpose of the table, which is not e.g. "Name of country or city, year given, and name of honor", but "State and local honors received by Giorgio Moroder" or "State and local honors" or similar. It's okay for this to be redundant to the section title. The main "Awards and nominations" list should also have a caption.  Done For further accessibility, the lead image should have alt text and I believe the caption "Moroder in 2007" shouldn't use small text. On the infobox matter, there's now a new-ish template for this—{{Infobox awards list}}—but I think the current version is fine too.  Done Should state and local honors not be chronological?  Done In the lead, state and local honors are in italics but in the table they are not. Is there a reason for it?  Done The table note "Each year is linked to the article about the awards held that year, wherever possible." is a self-reference to avoid (no guarantee that reuse of the content would include links).  Done "Flashdance... What a Feeling" (from Flashdance) should have italics in the second Flashdance.  Done Flashdance is linked in 1984 after being linked in a small text earlier in the table. That is because it is linked to the soundtrack page, not the film article since the Grammy Awards nominated just the album. I wonder if it would be good to mention the Raspberries in the lead, because they're uniquely negative to receive (though I know many still consider them an honor). I tried to keep only the major awards in the lead. Can the Metropolis link go to the Moroder remake section, Metropolis (1927 film)#Giorgio Moroder version (1984)?  Done

Good prose in the lead, all the award references good and can't find any significant accolades omitted from the article. Interesting to see one of these lists for something where the bulk of the awards were pre-internet, and a very interesting figure. Just the nitpicks above. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Leo Mercury, will oppose conditional on these comments if there's no response in a couple of days. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've done all the corrections. --Leo Mercury (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Support: happy with the replies above and the implemented changes. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [10].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Community

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) — Bilorv (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A cult favorite, Community is a meta-love letter to television and film, exploring and using tropes while also examining them. The show has had a huge and dedicated fandom since its release in 2009, but with its recent re-emergence on Netflix and some public cast get-togethers, it's gaining a fair bit more traction. The show was critically acclaimed but never huge in mainstream awards. I'm co-nominating this list with RunningTiger123, who has done most of the work on creating and expanding the list, which surprisingly didn't exist until April and has been long overdue for years. — Bilorv (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The format of awards/nominations lists consisting of lots of tiny tables has been deprecated for quite some time. Everything should be in one table (see e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging Bilorv to get his thoughts. The page was modeled after similar featured lists such as Black Mirror and Parks and Rec, but we can look into changing the format if that's the new standard. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm rather confused given that the page you point to isn't an FL yet and there are at least dozens of current FLs with the multiple table format, the most recent one of which I contributed to being promoted in December 2018 (Black Mirror, linked above). If the multiple table format has been deprecated then could you point us to where this was established? — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I can't offhand point to exactly where it was established, but certainly all "awards and noms" FLs that I have seen promoted in the last year or so have been in the new format e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, List of awards and nominations received by Margaret, List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa, List of awards and nominations received by Emilia Clarke, List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things, List of awards and nominations received by BTS, List of awards and nominations received by Exo, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Curiouser and curiouser. I see a mention of the standard changing in Exo but again, no pointer to a discussion. Do you think you could suggest a venue where we could ask about this? My first two thoughts, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards, don't look very active. Presumably if the standard suddenly changed 12-18 months ago then there was a wide discussion about it. I think we're both happy to change the format if it's a requirement, but I'd like to see why the convention was changed and where. — Bilorv (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
          • The best I have found so far is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey/archive1 (May 2018), where The Rambling Man said that the format of using lots of little tables (resulting in a massive TOC in some cases) did not look good and recommended changing to the format used by the then-existing FL List of accolades received by Call Me by Your Name, and pretty much every similar list since then has followed the same format............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Appreciate that your Black Mirror list was promoted after that - I don't remember noticing that one at the time....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
              • I totally agree with Chris. Addition of heading for each award does nothing–except for adding extra bytes for the list. Seriously, why do I need to know this...., The Comedy Awards were presented by the television network Comedy Central for comedy in American television, film and other media. The first awards were given in 2011. I can just click on the article that is linked (if I wanted to know more)....... "The International Press Academy present the Satellite Awards in television, film, radio and other media" this is a piece of useless information. If you need help with merging tables I can assist you with that. Wikipedia:Wall of text is about long post to a noticeboard or talk page discussion but it applies here as well.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                • Alright, if RunningTiger123 is happy then let's run with this and change the format. I think the pair of us can handle the format change, but if you're interested in leaving a review CAPTAIN MEDUSA, perhaps once we've reshuffled everything, then that would be much appreciated. — Bilorv (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • I actually just finished a merged table in my sandbox. If it looks good, I can move it over. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • Hi RunningTiger123, It looks good but I am not a big fan of small text (Derek R. Hill (production designer)). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • I'm going to ping Bilorv on this again. While some articles don't use small text, others do, including featured lists (see Black Mirror and The Simpsons). I think the other articles use it to distinguish between nominees and extra information. If there has been a change to consensus, I'm more than happy to make the change, but I want to make sure the decision is consistent. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • This falls under web accessibility. The small text is quite difficult to read. It's like a Text next to a Text. You have lean more closer to your monitor to read. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                        • To be honest, I was wondering about this one. Still can't find clear instruction in MOS:ACCESS but I think we should lean on the safe side and make the text normal-sized. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
                        • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • Amazing, thanks for doing this. Go ahead and move it over, yeah. — Bilorv (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• No need to wikilink Yahoo! Screen twice
  • Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the table

• People's names should sort based on surname. Currently they sort on forename.
  • Yep, done. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I made one little tweak to the notes which was easier to just do than to list here, and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I can't find any reference problems --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Add caption for the lead image

• Is a caption necessary for the image, or would it be redundant? I think the infobox is comparable to the one used in the FL List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, which does not have a caption. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add a better ALT text

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• documentary spoofs → mockumentary?

• For now, I'm going to leave it as is because it more closely aligns with the linked articles' descriptions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• gaining a cult following → more sources

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add sources at the end of a sentence. This makes it easier for the reader to find sources they are looking for rather than searching around.

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• What are the characters the actors play? Maybe introduce them in lead

• Instead of listing the characters individually, I added a link to the page List of Community characters. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've been thinking and reckon it's good to list the characters' common name in brackets after the actor—added for now but let me know if you disagree. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Several episodes → link List of Community episodes

• I amended a sentence in the first paragraph to include the link to List of Community episodes. Let me know if this works. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• The third season → link Community (season 3)
• fourth season → link Community (season 4)
• fifth season → link Community (season 5)
• the sixth aired → link Community (season 6)

• Individual season links added. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Archive sources

• I'm going to ping Bilorv on this one, since he did the archiving for most of the sources already. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rest should now be archived. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add a better short description

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add a better title to the list. Maybe 'Awards and nominations'

• For clarification, do you think this should be used or the full title like you have in the sronly template below? RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Changed "List" to "Awards and nominations" for now.) — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why do nominees(s) have a break? eg.

Steven Sprung and Peter B. Ellis

(for "A Fistful of Paintballs")

• This was modeled on the FL List of awards and nominations received by Parks and Recreation. Personally, I think it adds clarity by preventing text wrapping in the middle of the episode title, but I can change it if you think it would help. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• It flows better in the same line. See List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson for example. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• |+ Awards and nominations received by Community → |+ Awards and nominations received by ''Community'' {{sronly|Awards and nominations received by ''Community''}}

• Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• That's it from me. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — Nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA:: I know you already gave support, but I wanted to follow up on one point you made. You suggested changing the table title to use the {{sronly}} template, but that makes the title in plain text redundant. However, other featured lists seem to just use the title with no need for {{sronly}}. Do you think we should hide the title and use the template or just write out the title for the table so that it's visible? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
      • It helps people with a screen reader. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
        • So are both the plain text and the template needed, or just the template? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
          • My understanding is that {{sronly|text here}} appears exactly the same to a screen reader user as text here, but doesn't display at all to a visual reader—this is what the documentation says. So the point is surely to use {{sronly}} but not have the same text in plaintext, otherwise a screenreader user hears it read out twice in succession, and the sighted user still sees the redundant table title. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 17:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: is this your understanding too? — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 13:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Bilorv and RunningTiger123: This might answer your question.

              Since FLC mandates that nominations follow ACCESS, this means that they'll need to start having captions. In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "|+ Example table caption".

              — PresN, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#RFC that will effect us
              • Thanks, that's really helpful! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

;Comments You could add "See also" links to List of Community characters and List of Community episodes Is that necessary? Both articles have links in the lead and the infobox, so as a general rule, they don't need links in a "See also" section per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Are the repeated wiki links in the Category and Nominee(s) column necessary? Based on similar lists that were recently promoted (i.e. shows like Game of Thrones and Stranger Things, as well as actors like Emilia Clarke and Scarlett Johansson), duplicate wiki links are acceptable. I presume that helps with sorting -- if you use one wiki link per topic, the link may be at the top initially, but sorting the table may move it somewhere else. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC) the refs look good Great list overall. ~ HAL333 13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The list is featured worthy. ~ HAL333 15:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [11].

---

England cricket team Test results (1990–2004)

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. (I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the New York City Marathon/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding concerns.) Harrias ^talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "England won more matches than they lost against Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sri Lanka the West Indies" - missing comma

• Oops, added. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• "who they beat by 329 runs" => "whom they beat by 329 runs"

• I never know which to use. Switched. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• The image caption needs a source

• Added. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The England cricket team represented Scotland until 1992, when they" - ambiguous as to who "they" are

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias ^talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from User:Drat8sub

alt. description for images. Added. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Delink repeated venues per MOS:OVERLINK, only once is enough. No, because a sortable table can have different rows at the top, we link every instance. See MOS:REPEATLINK. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) It says " if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated", so MOS:OVERLINK should be followed (no one click those link, if anyone wants a single link is enough). And for the table, it does not have any different categories of rows, for which the places are needed to be linked mutiple times and for sorting, the table can also sort without linking multiple times. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @Drat8sub: No, completely disagree, sorry. Harrias talk 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Disagreeing completely! Fine, so you are disagreeing the MOS:REPEATLINK policy which says "if helpful for readers" which is not the case here and MOS:OVERLINK which says "locations and geographical features should not be linked repeatedly" until and unless its necessary. I don't see any clarification from you, how the linking justify the policies of Repeatlink and Overlink. Give a clarification on the policies, because you are a reviewer here too, your take will be reflected on other's nominations here and may be helpful. Drat8sub (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @Drat8sub:I disagree with your interpretation. As you say, MOS:REPEATLINK says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So let's establish a string of statements, and let me know where you disagree: Including a link to the ground and location is helpful to the reader. The reader will want to be able to easily access that link. In a sortable table, if the table has been rearranged, it might not be easy to find where that link is. Providing the link in each row of the table makes it easier to access the link. A lot easier in fact. Therefore, repeating the link in the table is helpful to the reader. Note that MOS:REPEATLINK goes on to say "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." It specifically draws attention to the fact that including duplicate links will aid the reader if the table "is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom", which is very much the case in a sortable table. Harrias talk 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC) See also, this conversation where the topic was discussed a few months ago. Harrias talk 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I have read that before, that discussion was not about locations, more of seasons which I can understand can be helpful for readers. But my particular concern is about location i.e, cities or countries. I am ok with linking the stadiums which may be assumed to be helpful for readers but not the cities, once will be enough, as without a link to cities will not make any un-helpful situation; the statistics says so, no one actually open these cities' and countries' link, specifically coming to a article dealing with sport topics. More than that, even if they are interested in venue and click the stadium, obviously the same cities link will be found in the stadium article. So you can delink the cities atleast keeping once. I can make my final comment after that. However, FYI I've opened a discussion already there, let me see what other editors have to say on this particular matter, if you want to wait till that discussion over, you can wait. Drat8sub (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Essentially, my argument, as laid out above, is that if something is helpful to link in the table, we should link it every time. If you are suggesting that some cities should not be linked, per MOS:OVERLINK, then I have sympathy with that view, but the issue comes of where to draw the line. I can easily agree that London doesn't need linking, but Kandy does. How about Centurion, or Bridgetown? Harrias talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Harrias, I am happy to support. I think this should not be the reason to block the nom because I think the discussion will take time and once any consensus reach, we can work on the various articles later on. Well, may be I'm missing here something, so if you allow me to know why the record is from 1990 to 2004, why not from 1990 to 99. Again, since Scotland board became independent entity in '92, why not '92 to '99? Again, the exact lowest point is in '99-2000 so why not from 1990-2000? If your intention of recording the history of England lowest phase then it would be upto Sri Lanka series of 2003, as after that England revived. With that, is there any similar preceding articles to see a consistency with such record? The navigation box at the bottom of the article will link you to England cricket team Test results (1877–1914), England cricket team Test results (1920–1939), England cricket team Test results (1946–1959), England cricket team Test results (1960–1974) and England cricket team Test results (1975–1989). The initial time spans were due to the World Wars, but since then it was collected into roughly 15-year blocks simply for size considerations; not a reflection of the team's performance. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Yup, seen that, looks fine then. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC) That's all from me. Dey subrata (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC) @Dey subrata: Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) @Dey subrata: Just wondered if you'd had a chance to look over this again? Harrias talk 09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry, there were some problems with the account. Addressed the points above. Drat8sub (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems ok to me, happy to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments "represents ... represented" is repetitive. Replaced the second with "incorporated". Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) South Africa is repeated in one of the following sentences. Rephrased to "and also played South Africa for the first time in almost 30 years after their apartheid-era sporting boycott was lifted." How is that? Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) "while they won by ten wickets three times. " against Bangladesh? Swapped the sentence around, does that work? Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) "during this period." the last period you mentioned was 2003-04, I think you're probably meaning the period the list covers. Clarified. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) You have "New Zealand in England, 1990" but "1993 Ashes series " which redirects to "Australian cricket team in England in 1993 ", although the redirects are not consistent (e.g. 1990–91 Ashes series is thus titled. Perhaps it was because they only played the Ashes that season and not any other single game??) Throughout all these lists, I have named appropriate Ashes series by that name, as it is the more common name for those series. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Nottingham linked but Birmingham not? Maybe it's a bit UK-centric to assume people know where Manchester is, perhaps for these few odd locations, just be linking-consistent and link 'em all. They look anomalous to me as it stands, and the logic behind it is probably POV... And Karachi... I had them all linked; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlink/Repeatlink clarification needed. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Just to be consistent, is there such a thing as W/L? Refs 11 and 12 have ESPN as publisher, the other cricinfo ones don't. Eugh, thought I had caught all of these. Sorted. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Scyld Berry has an article. Indeed he does. Linked. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Not strictly part of this review and I'm sure you'll address it on the next list anyway, but the Test results template at the bottom links to England cricket team Test results (2005–19) which is a redirect. Sorted. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC) That's all I have. Oh, and per usual, my glittering words will be submitted as a WikiCup entry. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks as always. Responded to each point above. Harrias talk 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [12].

---

2019 in cue sports

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there hasn't been a "year in X" article for featured status before, and all tournaments have been cited. Please let me know your thoughts on the article. I haven't created an FL before, so bare with me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• It could use an image. You should also expand the lede and source anything which isn't sourced later. ~ HAL333 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I think all of the information in the lede is currently cited by the lists, but I can certainly expand on that. Any ideas what type of image would be suitable? Maybe one of Judd Trump? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah. One showing him in action in 2019 would be great. ~ HAL333 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sadly snooker images aren't exactly super up-to-date. I've included the newest version of an image of him as I could (as an aside, most other players either do not have images, or are significantly more out of date!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support A solid article. ~ HAL333 02:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment This may be a dumb-ass question (it wouldn't be my first) but why does an article called 2019 in cue sports contain a huge number of events which occurred in 2018? Some of the tables literally consist entirely of events which took place in 2018...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Not a stupid question at all (far from it actually). I wasn't sure exactly how to deal with this. The article is a split from 2019 in sports, and has the snooker events done by season. (See 2018 in sports for example). I didn't want to break the chronology just for one article, but quite happy to change for just the events in the year, rather than how it's done in other articles (shouldn't take too long at all). I hope that makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Personally I do think it would be much better, given the title, if the article only included 2019 events....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC) I have changed this to be just the events taking place in 2019. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Comments The lead seems quite brief, could you add some more detail? I'll get to work  Working Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "The snooker season runs between May and April," - this is linked to the 2018-19 season. As the article now covers sections of two seasons, probably better to remove the link. Or find a way to link to both seasons. Unlinked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "Below is a list of all notable results from cue sports in the year of 2019." - don't think this is needed (this also applies to the individual sports' sections) removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "whilst World Cup of Pool" => "whilst the World Cup of Pool" Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I think each sport's section should have a longer block of text at the start summarising more of the content. You could also add a summary above sections such as the snooker Challenge Tour, explaining what it is, so that readers don't have to click away to another article. I hadn't thought of this. Exactly, I'll add something.  Working Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "The Billiards season started in October 2018, and runs into July 2019." - firstly, should Billiards have a capital mid-sentence? Also, this should now cover both seasons which fell within the calendar year. And finally, the table still covers October 2018 to July 2019 - it should cover the calendar year. Whoops, changed for events in 2019. I knew I'd missed one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) "The World Snooker season began in July 2018, and ended in May 2019." - same comments as the last point, essentially Changed. 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Women's snooker section ends with an event in November 2018??? Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Were there no amateur snooker events after June? One that I missed! Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Some refs do not have access dates  Working Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Done! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Was there any more for this, ChrisTheDude? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Did you get anywhere with adding a brief intro to different sections outlining what the event(s) in that section actually are (if it isn't immediately apparent from the heading)? For example, there's a section headed "Challenge Tour", but as a non-snooker fan I have no idea what that is and there's nothing here to tell me, meaning I have to click away to its own article to find out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I've added a little bit of info for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

;Further comments Euro Tour section could do with an intro explaining what that is Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) In the intro to the billiards section, billiards has a capital B - don't think it should Agreed. I've changed to English billiards, as that is strictly what we are speaking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "The World Billiards Championship was played in October 2018, won by Sourav Kothari and Emma Bonney" - can't see any reason to mention this in the 2019 article Whoops - meant to change this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Challenge Tour links to the wrong article (a golf tournament) Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "a secondary non-professional snooker Tour held with events from qualified players" - the last bit doesn't seem to make sense. Do you mean simply "for qualified players"? Also, what is a "qualified player"? reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) I don't think tour should have a capital T in the middle of the sentence Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) In the non-ranking events table, "The Masters" should sort under M Sorted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Pro-am section could do with a brief into explaining the concept Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Seniors Tour could also do with a brief intro Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) In the amateur section, the last one uses the wrong dash done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I've covered all of these ChrisTheDude! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

I really like this article. I've added in a couple of tournaments that I think are worthy of inclusion. The list could get long, but there might be some items at the Asian Confederation of Billiard Sports site worth including, e.g. SEA games and Asian Championship. Similarly, anything that's a qualifying event for the main professional tour (as mentioned here) might make the grade. And Snooker at the 2019 African Games maybe? (I'm willing to help as well as to throw suggestions in!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, happy to add BennyOnTheLoose you got a short list, and I'll get them on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a couple of events in. Billiards and snooker at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games might be worth including too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have put in the SEA games BennyOnTheLoose - I was surprised the website is already down for the event! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with some of the 2019 African Games pages already being unavailable. I'm happy to support the article being an FL - I'm not an expert on FL requirements but looks to me like the list is comprehensive, with suitable supporting text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Newspaper sources it is! No worries, I'll be using this a template for future articles. A good practice might be to archive the websites whilst they are up from future! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [13].

---

20–20–20 club

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. The last FLC 8 years ago was a close split over whether this list satisfied criteria 3b, and two months later, one admin stated that he "would have supported that one [i.e. this list] as there was no good place to merge it". —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support A solid article. ~ HAL333 01:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I tried really hard but couldn't find anything to pick you up on - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Shearonink

• Comment Loved this list, the text was nicely-written and the permissions etc for the image of Mays and for the image of Brett pass muster. However, the image of Granderson and the image of Rollins are problematic. I think other photos of these two gentlemen will probably have to be found.

• Granderson - Source is rendered as being from a flickr account but when I went to that account the image no longer exists. The real sticking point though is that all the KA Sports Photos/keith allison images I checked (including 2018 photos of Granderson) have "copyright:all rights reserved" tags.

• @Shearonink: I think the photo can still be used, since it was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic on the date it was uploaded (much like how this photo was given the same permission). In fact, Creative Commons states how "The licenses and CC0 cannot be revoked. This means once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright, even if you later stop distributing it." —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah you're right. I missed the part about confirming the license at that time bit. My bad. Looks like this photog has changed their mind about their photos' licenses since both the present Rollins and Granderson images were taken by the same person & originally given a CCbySA licensure. Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rollins - Source info is probably invalid. The source is stated to be "Googie Man" or "Googie man" a blocked user who apparently had a lot of image file issues during their time on-wiki. When I checked the image's status, the Commons page says the source is Wikipedia and the Wikipedia file page says the source is Commons...and in both the source info states the creator was Googie man. Which seems probably not to be the case...

• @Shearonink: Agreed – I've now replaced the photo. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support on the images and other aspects of the List. Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (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, 29 June 2020 (UTC) [14].

---

90th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2018 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 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, and 2017 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Shape of Water won a four awards- remove "a". ~ HAL333 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @HAL333:: Fixed: Removed the excess "a" in that sentence. --Birdienest81 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, well done. ~ HAL333 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

;Comments "televised in the United States by American Broadcasting Company" => "televised in the United States by the American Broadcasting Company", surely? Fixed: Changed "televised in the United States by American Broadcasting Company" to "which was televised in the United States by ABC" in line with previous Oscar ceremony lists that are FL status. "Other winners included Dunkirk won three awards" - doesn't make sense. Maybe "Other winners included Dunkirk, which won three awards" Fixed: Changed "won" to "with" in line with previous Oscar ceremonies that are FL status Same comment for the two-award winners Fixed: Also changed "won" to "with" "since Mickey Rooney for his role in 1939's Babes in Arms." - film title should be in italics Fixed: Added italics to the movie's title If the citations for the honorary awards are direct quotations, I would put them in quote marks Fixed: Added quotation marks. "highlighting depictions of the U.S. Military in film" - no reason for capital M Fixed: Changed "military" from capital "M" to lowercase "m". "Despite the mixed reception received from" => "Despite the mixed reception received by" Fixed: Changed "received from" to "received by" "before several categories highlighting the importance of several below-the-line categories" - suggest using a different word to avoid repetition of "categories" Fixed: highlighting the importance of below-the-line crafts during film production. "with a 14.9% households" => "with 14.9% of households " Fixed: Removed the unnecessary "a" in that sentence. "Singer Eddie Vedder performing" => "Singer Eddie Vedder performed" Fixed: Changed "performing" to performed. Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Done: Thank you for your feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Made a few minor amendments and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS

The lack of a source URL for File:2018 Oscars Official Poster.png is suspicious. It's also lazy for users to just say it "could be obtained from the distributor", which could potentially be a disguise for unofficial artwork that got pulled from a fansite or (even worse) was fabricated altogether. Fixed: Added source from Deadline Hollywood showing poster. The user probably downloaded the image and then compressed it. It also may have come from the AMPAS website under press kits section. Here is the same page archived from 2018 when the 90th Oscars occured and thus shows the same key art that is depicted in this article. I will assume good faith with the claims that File:Guillermo del Toro by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg, File:James Ivory (1991.09).jpg, and File:Sebastián Lelio A Fantastic Woman Berlinale 2017.jpg are the uploaders' own work No problems with File:Gary Oldman (13948780853) (cropped).jpg, File:Sam Rockwell (8279227257).jpg, File:AllisonJanneyTIFFSept2011.jpg, File:Jordan Peele Peabody 2014 (cropped).jpg, File:LA Lakers-Kobe Bryant.jpg, or File:Roger Deakins Feb-2011 02 (cropped).jpg Could we get a different file source link for File:Frances McDormand 2015 (cropped).jpg? I'm not finding it in what was given. Fixed: Changed URL to one that actually links the picture. File:Lee Unkrich cropped 2009.jpg has a non-working URL, so I'd either fix the link or swap this image out for something else Fixed: Removed image since there is no valuable replacement. It doesn't seem like a good idea to use File:Alexandre Desplat 2015.jpg when the image's file source says "All rights reserved", which I'm pretty sure means that's copyrighted Fixed: Removed image since there is no valuable replacement. Not sure File:Jimmy Kimmel in 2015.jpg is appropriately licensed I would replace the Kimmel image, but I'm not sure which one is properly licensed. I'll look for a better one and let you know later what a more appropriate use would be. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: Even if over a decade old, File:Jimmy Kimmel 01.jpg is perfectly fine to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Fixed: Replaced photo of Kimmel with the one you provided. "However, Best Actor winner Casey Affleck reportedly decided not to attend the ceremony due to his sexual harassment accusations; Jodie Foster and Jennifer Lawrence presented the award together in his place; the Best Actor award was presented by actresses Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren." is quite a mouthful! I'd split that overly long sentence into three parts by replacing the semi-colons with periods. Fixed: Replaced semicolons with periods. Super short paragraphs make the text look choppy, so I'd merge the two paragraphs from "Ratings and reception" when its second one is quite small on its own. Fixed:Merged paragraphs into one. None of the links included in "see also" are really relevant except for List of submissions to the 90th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film, and taking place in the same year isn't sufficient justification for including them Fixed: Removed other see also links except Foreign Language one. Variety should be italicized in ref#19 ("Oscars: 'Lady Bird's' Greta Gerwig Becomes Fifth Woman Nominated for Best Director") Fixed: Changed field of Variety from publisher to work to make title italicized. That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) That Jimmy Kimmel license is actually kind of funny. I don't know how it has been on Commons for two years. ~ HAL333 05:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Following my media review and sufficient improvements for that among other things, I support as the article is now up to FL quality as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support and comments from Aza24
• Here are some ref fixes:
  • Ref #16 should be "cite news" not "cite web" and needs author
  • Ref #29 should "cite news"
  • Ref #39 should "cite news"
  • Ref #44 should "cite news"
  • Ref #47 needs author, publishing date
  • Ref #49 should "cite news"
  • Ref #56 needs author and should "cite news"
• I support this solid list, with the hopes that these (very) minor issues will be addressed. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Aza24: I've fixed refs 16, 47, and partially 49, but I'm not sure what you mean by "cite news"? The other refs you listed are using the cite news template. Do you mean the refs do not provide evidence for the statements claimed in their respective sentences?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, that was definitely unclear! There's a couple sources that are news sites but use "cite web" template instead of "cite news" one. If you open up the editor and do command f cite web, you can through them and should be able to be able to change the ones that are news sites pretty quickly. I honestly doubt if this makes a difference, syntax wise, but consistency is always important. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Aza24:Done: Changed a few "cite web" templates to a "cite news" ones for citations using agencies such as NBC News, CNN, or CBS News. I've kept "cite web" templates for ones that are not primarily news agencies, magazines, or newspapers such as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or Television Bureau of Advertising.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Alt text should describe what is in the photo such as Photo of a man in a dark suit smoking a cigarette --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Guerillero:According to WP:ALT#Importance of context, alt text shouldn't describe what kind of clothes the person is wearing or what action the person is doing unless this is a fashion article. I've used to do that for former articles, but someone pointed my errors in this previous FLC (see comments under FrankBoy fifth bullet point).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability of the sources looks fine throughout. In addition to updating the templates as suggested above, I suggest that you have a look at the formatting of ref 35. Somehow, the listed title looks like an access date, and the true title of the article doesn't appear. That's definitely worth fixing. Unfortunately, I can't get the link-checker tool to work at the moment, but I'd say we're a few tweaks away from a successful source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, it looks like the templates have been fixed now. I'm comfortable calling this sourcing review a pass at this point, as that was my last outstanding item. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 24 June 2020 (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) 22:07, 28 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [15].

---

List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk), Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there are no featured lists for compositions by a classical composer except List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart by Brianboulton. Brian was a fabulous contributor, who got all of Monteverdi's operas (L'Orfeo, L'Arianna, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, L'incoronazione di Poppea and Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi) to FA status. If this list is promoted to FL then I'll nominate it to be a featured topic with all of the other Operas, since the extensive work from Brian deserves nothing the less. The list itself is the result of work by Gerda Arendt and myself, but we decided to go a different route than the List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, by putting more information below the table, so it's less cluttered and has better mobile accessibility. Any and all comments would be appreciated! - Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 15:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments – The lede could use some expanding. ~ HAL333 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: I'm not really sure what to could add, since everything is in the background section. Should the background section perhaps be moved into the lede? (That's where it was before) - Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC) @Aza24: That would work. ~ HAL333 01:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: Done - Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC) In the final paragraph, you should add a ref for "Monteverdi was instrumental in developing and popularizing the genre for public musical theatre". ~ HAL333 21:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Done - Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Great article, you’ve done Brian well. ~ HAL333 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support HAL333! - Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

*"the then emerging opera genre" => "the then-emerging opera genre" Done "For three of these, music and libretto" => "For three of these, the music and libretto" Done "The first known work to be regarded as an opera in the modern sense is Dafne " - the title should be in italics Done Same for Euridice (twice) Done The sentence beginning "In 1613" is extremely long and would benefit from being broken up Good call, Done "his L'Orfeo is the earliest opera still regularly performed" - no reason to state this twice in the lead Done I will look at the rest of the article later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Awesome, thank you for your initial comments. Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Comments on the table Prefacing a table with prose saying "The table lists....." isn't really done nowadays. I would convert all that stuff above the table into a key table, or more likely two, one for the "groups", and then for the column headings -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Let me know what you think of my solution to this. I originally had the column headings next to the groups, but it looked odd to have a table of 8 things next to one of 4 so I made it 6 next to 6, if that makes sense. - Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• When tables of songs, films, etc contain English titles starting with "The" or "A", it is standard to sort on the next word, so I would say the same should apply here for anything that starts with "Il", "Le", etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: To be honest, I'm not sure about this one, the "Il" and "Le" seem too apart of the name to be seperated. Thoughts? - Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's leave this open and see what other people think..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right, Chris, I didn't think of that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

*Opera title should be in italics Done - Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC) The three uncompleted operas have values in the "Occasion" column even though (as far as I can see) they never received a premiere - can you clarify this? I realise it is explained further down, but at this point readers haven't got to that bit....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Done - Good point, I added that they were "incomplete" - Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Monteverdi's dates of birth and death would would be helpful context.

Done - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• "the duke immediately realized the potential of this new art form and sought to gain prestige from the patronage of it" "immediately" does not sound right as he took 6 years to commission Monteverdi.

  Done – Good point, I just removed the immediately. - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Should that go for Monteverdi's article also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1613 Monteverdi became maestro di cappella at St Mark's Basilica in Venice, where he still composed operas for the Gonzaga court but also for the public Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venice." This implies that he was writing for both at the same time, but the list shows that he stopped in 1630 and then started again exclusively for the theatre in 1640.

Done – Its supposed to imply that even though he left the Gonzaga court, he still wrote Operas for them, does the phrasing I changed it to make that clear? - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• In the key and table, the arrangement of information about survival of the operas is illogical. You put them last in the key and first in the table. The heading 'Group' makes no sense and should be 'Survival', or better still delete it entirely. There is no point in having both numbers and colour coding for the same thing.

  The numbers are for MOS:ACCESS – I don't think there's anyway around this. I did move the colors/groups in to the beginning of the key, is that what you meant for the first part of this comment? - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I put them second, and gave them words instead of numbers. Better words welcome. We do need something for vision-impaired who will have problems with colours alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The librettists should be linked in the table. Can we think of short words for the state of survival, abbreviating the description in the legend? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done (Marigliani doesn't have a page) - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I changed the direct link to WP:IT to an interlanguage link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Andromeda, a favola in musica, was commissioned by Don Vincenzo Gonzaga for the Mantua Carnival of March 1618, to a libretto by Marigliani. Due to Monteverdi's disinterest, it was first performed during the 1620 Carnival season". Presumably you mean that he took two years to finish it, but it would be clearer to say so rather than referring to disinterest.

  Done - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent whether dramma is capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done - Should be lowercased now everywhere except in the table. - Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Dudley Miles: Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed everything you brought up, with exception to removing the groups as they are to full fill MOS:ACCESS. Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I added some, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. You just need to update the revisions table. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for good questions and support, and update also done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

More comments

• The first key table looks odd with some of the cells in the first column centred and others not - I think it would be better if all were centred

  I agree, only I didn't manage to apply two style= features, and don't have time to study how. Anybody? --GA

  Should be good now. Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The libretto is written with dramatic instinct" - not 100% sure what this means, can you clarify?

  We'd need to ask Brian Boulton. --GA

• "which he criticised in a letter dated 9 December 1616" - Earlier you had "-ize" words spelt thus (American English) but here you use British English. Pick one and make sure it is used all the way through. Using AmEng would presumably require using spellings such as "theater"

  Brit for a European topic. Will try to fix. --GA

• "Due to Monteverdi's disinterest it took 2 years to complete" - write the number as a word

  yes --GA

• "(literally: happy ending tragedy)" - you haven't used "literally" with any of the other translations, why so here?

  (I didn't do it.) Guess the others are pretty obvious. --GA

  Yes I believe that was me. This genre didn't seem to have an english equivalent so I used a literal word for word one, but the inconsistency is probably not worth the extra word so I removed the "literally". Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• In the See also section, but a bullet point before the link

  No, I dropped it altogether. That link is in his template, and if that's not enough, it could be included in the prose. --GA

• Notes which are not a complete sentence (b, e, f, g) should not have a full stop.

  fixed, I hope --GA

• "Information is from (Carter & Chew 2001)" - why the brackets?

  I looked at that. The template makes them. Perhaps we should just write the note, without a link? Aza? --GA

  I made that one into just a ref. The other one for the table is part of the template like Gerda said and probably can't be changed. (The way it is right now makes the fact that it doesn't cover everything clear and links it to the source) Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I take the above comment back, I figured out how to remove them! Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you again for your helpful and thoughtful comments! Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Passes my source review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:06, 11 June 2020 (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) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (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, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [16].

---

List of mephitids

Nominator(s): PresN 03:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Number 6 in my animals-in-a-family series (previously: felids, canids, mustelids, procyonids, and the pending ursids), we keep marching down the "dog-like" half of Carnivora with the mephitids, which are mostly skunks but also includes the stink badgers, which are basically skunks with short hair and tails. It's another small family, at 12 extant species, but one that mostly makes sense, as it was split out from Mustelidae (badgers et. al.) fairly recently based on genetic evidence, which means it doesn't have as much odd historical baggage around the organization of the species. Unlike the last list (Ursids) for this family we have no population estimates at all, which is frustrating; we're also missing one image, as I managed to convince someone on flickr to re-license a photo of a Southern spotted skunk but couldn't do the same for the Pygmy spotted skunk. As always, the list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I tried really hard to find something to pick you up on but failed :-) Great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support A solid article, very clean-looking. ~ HAL333 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Might be interesting to mention smell in lede e.g. do they really all defend themselves by making a bad smell. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support on Source review and other aspects. I feel like I know more about skunks - present and extinct and prehistoric - than I thought possible. Fully-detailed sourcing. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - passed

I'm going to do a source review and will report back here within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 1: behind a paywall/subscription required notice needed
• Ref 5: the figures on length seem to be off?...

Got up to Ref 11, am taking a break will try to finish the rest up tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Up to Ref 20, About the only thing that I am personally having trouble with are the cites that express measurements as millimeters and then the article converts those lengths into centimeters but that's nothing that's actionable. I'm just wondering why the source chose mm and then the WP editor chose cm... Shearonink (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Various contributors to Animal Diversity Web may choose millimeters, but a lot of sources don't go beyond centimeters, presumably because millimeters is overly precise without a lot of samples, so for this series of articles I'm going with centimeters as a consistent precision. --PresN 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, didn't address your other points- added the payway icon to ref 1, and the lengths are right for ref 5- it's worded oddly, it's "50 to 60 cm in length counting the tail which is 15 to 18 centimeters in length", aka the tail is included in the length there. --PresN 02:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Passes source review. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2020 (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) 18:20, 21 June 2020 (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, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [17].

---

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1968

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The never-ending procession of country number ones lists marches on (45 down, 30-ish to go). Random interesting fact: in 1968 Eddy Arnold had his last ever number one and at that point he held the record for the highest number of chart-toppers. The song that knocked it off was the first ever number one for Conway Twitty, and he would go on to break Arnold's record some years later. Funny how these things turn out........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 15:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Another well done article. All of my following notes are subjective and don't even really needed to be acted on. "counting" in the third paragraph --> "including" In the caption for the Glen Campbell image, you could link "his first number one" to "I Wanna Live" "between" could be changed to from, as it seems to suggest that the 40 singles did not include songs from 1968 and 1986 Those might be a little nit-picky, because the list has no real flaws. ~ HAL333 04:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: - all done, thanks for the kind words -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me, great work. Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments – Refs 4, 12 and 13 are now a dead links. You might want to find a replacement on Wayback Machine or WebCite. @Bloom6132: - all replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Ref 7 (Library of Congress) gives me a "Error 503 Service Unavailable" message. This, however, may be temporary and it might be up and running again by the time you read this comment It's working now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC) In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption should be included. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of " @Bloom6132: - added, can you confirm that I have done it correctly......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Yup, excellent. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Read the prose in detail – looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – One significant reference formatting issue exists: almost all of the Billboard cites need publishers added to their citations. In addition, the book used in ref 8 should probably have a 13-digit ISBN number for consistency, to match the ones in refs 1 and 12. The reliability of the sources looks fine, so we just need these couple of formatting issues to be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I added the "work" to all the Billboard refs (can't believe I missed that). I didn't add the "publisher" as well as it's basically the same name. ISBN fixed too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The fixes all look good to me, so I'd say the source review has been passed. Thanks for taking care of those items. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 16 June 2020 (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) 18:10, 21 June 2020 (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, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Following on from the polesitters list we have the list for drivers who have set a fastest lap in a Formula One Grand Prix. Looking forward to your comments which will be dealt with expediently. NapHit (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The lede is well written but I think the article would be greatly improved if it had one citation per line as seen in other FA F1 articles such as List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher. ~ HAL333 22:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no need when the table is referenced by one ref. NapHit (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Scratch that. I realized that each name was a link. I now Support ~ HAL333 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Only a few minor points from me:

• "From 2007," would be better as "Since 2007," IMO
• StatsF1 is spelt wrongly in one ref
• Fastest is spelt wrongly in one ref
• It looks odd that "All figures correct as of the" is in italics but "2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" isn't
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

Comments from MWright96 Perhaps add a note that only the top ten can score a point for the fastest lap since 2019 as stated in the Formula One source? Formula One and Grand Prix are overlinked in the first paragraph; the second time both terms are wikilinked should not be so Please be consistent in linking the years to their respective seasons "Schumacher achieved this during the 2004 and 2005 seasons, Räikkönen matched this in the 2008 season." - ESPN does not say that Schumacher achieved ten fastest laps in 2005. That accolade was achieved by Raikkonen that year, so a minor rewrite is needed That's all my comments for this review. MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, MWright96, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @NapHit: There is a spelling error in the note in "Ony drivers who finish in the top ten are eligible to receive the point", which does not appear to be right after the sentence "This was reintroduced in the 2019 season" as per WP:SRF. Also the note template Template:Note label is no longer recommended for use as stated in the documentation. MWright96 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Ahh, I rushed the edit without thinking. Should be all good now, MWright96. Thanks for the heads up on note label, I didn't know it was no longer recommended. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support – MWright96 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review from Woody

Source review from Woody The first question is what makes StatsF1 a reliable source? It appears self-published and it is in the style of a blog. If it was the odd obscure fact then the argument of The Guardian have referenced it as taken on the pole sitters FLC would just about suffice. The issue here is the entire table is sourced to this dubious source. Going off the review you mentioned previously, the fact the site is used by The Guardian is positive but apart from that, I can't 100% say where they source the info from, or who is responsible for publishing the site. I've added a source from Forix, which has an affiliation with Autosport, as a second ref for the table. One thing to point out is that they have Hamilton's figure as one lower than it actually is, otherwise, everything else is fine. Another option is to use the F1 archive on the official site as a general ref for the whole table. It doesn't explicitly state the figures as this list does, but it does list who had the fastest laps for each race from 1950 to the present day. NapHit (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Nothing has changed from this this RSN thread as far as I can see. It is an amateur enthusiast's site as far as I can make out. Looking at the Forix site, it is clearer about it's origins: from about 6th Gear is a non-money enterprise run solely by motor racing history enthusiasts. The content (words, images, otherwise) that is appearing on the website was submitted by amateur contributors. I understand that it is hosted by FORIX which is owned by Motorsport Network but it isn't actually a Motorsport Network (owners of Autosport) site. They are just acting as a hosting company. Woody (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) I understand your concerns around StatsF1 and the comment about Forix. I've removed the StatsF1 ref from the table. I've added the archive page on the official Formula 1 site as a reference, Woody. NapHit (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC) That works for me. You could put the StatsF1 as an external link. It is certainly useful for corroboration, just not as a WP:V source if that makes sense. Woody (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Michael Schumacher holds the record for the highest total of fastest laps with 77. Lewis Hamilton is second with 47,[6]... The Reuters link ([6]) here only lists Hamilton's current total, which has a high likelihood of changing when the season starts. The source is good for the Schumacher amount so I would move it to the end of that sentence about Schumacher. The Hamilton and Raikkonnen can then be covered by the Autosport link. Moved the ref as requested. NapHit (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Schumacher and Räikkönen hold the record for the most fastest laps in one season with 10. Schumacher achieved this during the 2004 season, Räikkönen matched this in the 2005 and 2008 seasons. is sourced to an article from 2013. Are we sure it hasn't happened since? Is there any more recent source (there might not be and the claim is sourced so I'm content but a newer one would be beneficial) It hasn't changed since 2008, that's confirmed by the DHL Fastest Lap Award. I was unable to find a newer one, unfortunately, but as the reference is correct, I think it should suffice. ~~ I note that The first fastest lap, at the 1950 British Grand Prix, was set by Giuseppe Farina. is sourced to a race summary. It doesn't state this was the first race (though I know that it was, but that isn't sourced). I've added a reference to cover this now. NapHit (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) The main concern as stated above is StatsF1. What has changed from this RSN thread? Woody (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, Woody, I've responded to them all above. NapHit (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) I've struck the minnows but the sourcing for the main table is a concern and for clarity I feel I need to state I oppose for now. Woody (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) I'm happy with the sourcing now. One other thing, why is there a See also section? The fastest lap award is already linked in the lead and all of the others are part of the infobox. Woody (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC) I've added StatsF1 to the external links section as you suggested. Not sure why there is a see also section, good point. Guess it's not needed when the others are already linked higher up the page. Removed as suggested, Woody. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support All comments resolved. Woody (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2020 (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) 18:05, 21 June 2020 (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) 00:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [19].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Berkshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

; Comments from CAPTAIN MEDUSA Download coordinates as: KML · GPX → GPX link gives an error This seems to be a bug. I have posted a query on the template talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Ref no 30: is a Wikipedia article and when you click the ref it goes to the editing interface Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Is ref 40 a reliable source? Yes. The British Geological Survey is an official body. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Ref 40 author name reads "Stone, P.; et al" This is OK. I have used the "display-authors=etal" option. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) add more of a specific short description rather than "Wikipedia list article" Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Consider archiving sources. I have run the archiving script and most sources are archived, but it does not work for all sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) That's it from me. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your review CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I would appreciate your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ayushmann Khurrana performances/archive1. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on A-G "This unimproved meadow is species rich" - hyphen in species-rich? "Most of this site is broad leaved" - hyphen again? "These meadows have unimproved traditionally managed grassland" - hyphen again? "This poorly drained wood" - hyphen in poorly-drained? Got to pop offline now, will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Thanks ChrisTheDude. I have changed the first two but I am doubtful about the second two. They seem to me two separate words rather than a double barrelled expression, and googling them gives examples without hyphens. Dudley Miles (talk) Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC) More comments "less than 1-metre (3-foot) deep" - in this case there shouldn't be hyphens (and it should be "3 feet deep" not "3 foot deep") "one of the 284 'Rochschild Reserves" - is that spelt correctly? Notes c to e are complete sentences so need full stops That's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks again ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts

• Ratcliffe 1977 is throwing off Harv errors

• This is due to a technical change. See Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 69#Cite book Harv warning. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry about this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Inkpen Common, Inkpen Crocus Field, Seven Barrows et al needs a piped link for BBOWT per WP:ASTONISH

• If I understand correctly, you are suggesting a pipe instead of a redirect. This is not recommended. See Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent either way --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see that I have sometimes piped Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust|BBOWT and I have corrected. Is it OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since you are using the citations as well, a citation, do you also need to link to it directly in the table?

• Sorry I do not understand this point. Can you explain further please. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't remember, withdrawn --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Encyclopædia Britanica is a tertiary source. Can you find a secondary source?
• CountiesInEngland.com does not look like an RS to me
• Same with visitsoutheastengland.com

• These are fair comments, but the problem is that I cannot find secondary RSs which bother to state such basic facts. Do you think that I should delete them? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Leave EB and remove the others. The placement of Berkshire seems like a BLUESKY thing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero Dudley left you some queries last month, could you respond? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your further comments Guerillero. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:08, 11 June 2020 (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) 18:15, 14 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [20].

---

List of Romanian Top 100 number ones

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I have singificantly rewritten and cleaned up the article since my last FL attempt nearly three years ago. I have taken List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s as an example, which I have meanwhile promoted to FL. I believe this article is well-written and presents the information in a very comprehensive way. I'm happy for any comment(s). Greets!

Comments by ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

;Drive-by comment I presume that available data is very patchy and that's why, for example, there's nothing at all listed for 1998 or 1999? I would definitely make this much clearer early on in the article, rather than leave readers to think "hang on, where's half the information?"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for pointing this out, I have included something in the lead. Is this okay? Greets;Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC) More comments "Over the years, it was compiled by broadcast monitoring services Body M Production A-V and Media Forest" - does this mean that it was compiled by one organisation at one time and the other one at a different time? Or does it mean that it was compiled by both for all of its existence? If so, get rid of the first three words. It was first compiled by Body and then by Media Forest. I think I adjusted the language now. "After its launch in 1995, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show in 1998" - why just 1998? Was that the only year in which it was announced on the radio? How was it announced for the rest of its existence? I restructured things, hope it's clearer now. "It also gained notoriety, being featured" - I don't think "notoriety" is the word you want here. To be honest I would just say "It was also featured...." The chart was successful and had media portrayals in Romania (there's also a magazine report on that), but I agree this is a bit too much, so I have just removed the word. "Over its three-decade history" - in English, saying that something had a three-decade history means that it existed for at least thirty years. As this chart seems to have existed for only 17 years, the wording isn't appropriate. Done. "150 documented singles have reached" => "150 documented singles reached" Done. "has spent 12 weeks at the summit" => "spent 12 weeks at the summit"7 Done "longer than any other song" - how do you know this for sure if records are incomplete? The things is... everything in this article is based on just the things that I gotted from research. Of course everything is incomplete, but everything searchable has been addressed. I already say "documented" a lot, I think the user can assume that, if we had more archives, things would look different. "Since the chart's inauguration," - by definition, nobody can have reached number one before the chart's inauguration, so these words are redundant Done. "multiple artists have reached number one" => "multiple artists reached number one" Done. Photo caption: "being the song with the most documented weeks at number one in the chart's history." => "making it the song with the most documented weeks at number one in the chart's history." Done Other photo captions: I don't think you need to mention when the picture was taken unless it was many years before or after the thing that the caption refers to (to indicate that the person probably looked different at the time). So, for example, I don't think you need to note that the picture of Busta Rhymes was taken in 2002 when talking about something he did in 2003...... Done, removed some. "and further topped the chart with "Where Is the Love?"." => "and also topped the chart with "Where Is the Love?"." Done. "topped 2011 year-end chart." => "topped the 2011 year-end chart." Done. "The chart was founded in 1995, but had another name until 1996" - it seems odd that this fact is only mentioned in a footnote, and equally odd that you don't say what the other name was........ I would really love to mention the name, but unfortunately it isn't available. However, while I though about it, I think it isn't that much of a too-notable fact for it to be included here, so I removed it. I also restructured things a bit. Does it look better now?. "In some cases, the inscriptions solely reflect the maximum amount of weeks at number one available." - "inscriptions" definitely isn't the right word here and the rest doesn't seem to make sense. Could you confirm what it means? Does it mean that a song might not have spent as many weeks at number one as are shown here? Or that it might have spent more? I want to say that the weeks listed are in cases (especially for those where we lack archives) not the total amount of weeks at number one, but rather the found/available amount of weeks at number one. I may indeed sound weird, do you have an suggestion on how to rewrite. I would suggest "In some cases, data is incomplete and songs may have spent more weeks at number one than shown" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC) That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your comments, I have solved several on them. I ask for advice on some, though. All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Done that as well now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Not to bother you, but have your concerns actually been solved? If you're busy, feel free to disregard. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Capped everything above, will have a second look tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Start in 2004" => "Starting in 2004" "unupdated" is not a word. To be honest, I am not sure that sentence is even needed, I think the previous sentence covers it. We have a lot of archives of the RT100 website, for example in 2009, but the chart table remains frozen because it hadn't been updated there. But I understand your point; I have instead added "lacks usable archives" in the previous sentence and remove the one in question. "the youngest artist ever to attain a number-one in a country" - firstly, "number one" should not have a hyphen. Also, "in a country" isn't the right wording because of course it happened in a country, where else would it happen? ;-) I think what you mean is "the youngest artist ever to attain a number one in any country" Ahaha, thank you very much for the help, I changed up the sentence now. Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your comments, I have solved them. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by HAL333

Resolved comments from HAL333

Comments Why are some issue dates just the year and other in a month and day format? ~ HAL333 01:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: A magazine reports that Michael Jackson's song was the first Romanian Top 100 number one, and that it was in 1995—no exact date given. In 1997, 2000 and 2001, the Romanian Top 100 published its year-end chart where they also stated which songs reached number one (however without a date; the amount of weeks at number one was only revealed in the 2000 and 2001 year-end charts). In the late 2000s, there are multiple archives of Romanian Top 100's homepage which listed the top 10 songs weekly. However, the homepage doesn't state the issue date of the respective top 10, so we can only take the month from when the homepage was archived at Web.archive.org. For the 2010s, only a few podcasts of the chart are missing. For example, in one, the host Andreea Berghea says that "Dream Girl" by Smiley (see September 2011) topped the chart for 4 total weeks, however, they do not say when it first reached number one and there is no podcast available (anymore) to search that in. So we can only know the month the song first reached number one since we know charts were issued weekly. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Ok - perfectly reasonable. I have another question, why are the year dates all centered the full dates aligned at the left? ~ HAL333 13:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @HAL333: I just think it's more aesthetically pleasing to have short(er) dates or numbers centered. This why the references and the weeks at number one are also centered. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Not to bother you, but have your concerns/questions actually been solved? If you're busy, feel free to disregard. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries - I appreciate the reminder. After another check over its content, I Support. ~ HAL333 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Paparazzzi

Resolved comments from Paparazzzi (talk)

Comments Expect a review soon.Paparazzzi (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Do you know anything about this website? That source is included on the "Hot n Cold" article, which is interesting because it was the most played song of 2009 but its peak position is not documented. --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I think you should clarify that the chart was not updated from certain periods of times, being that the reason why it lacks some archives; I realised that most archives from late 2008-early 2009 show the 16 June 2008 edition of the chart, while most archives from early 2010 show the 13 September 2009 chart.--Paparazzzi (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @Paparazzzi: I have also noticed this when expanding this article. However, I think this is just the issue of the archiving website, it often glitches when the website to be archived has drop-down lists to select from. I'm just talking from my own experience. This site, for example, can also not be archived properly although it's updated weekly. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Cartoon network freak: I don't believe it is an issue with the archiving website. This January 2010 archive from WebCite shows that the Top 100 was indeed outdated, showing the 13 September 2009 edition of the chart. Paparazzzi (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "In 2005, the number of radio stations involved was 120.[4] As of 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show which initially emerged from a partnership with Bravo.[5] " Chronologically incorrect.Paparazzzi (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I wanted to name everything important surrounding the chart's compilation in the first few sentences. And an important fact is the number of radio stations involved. Then, the next sentences are about the chart's announcement and history etc. I think this is way more structured, but in case you insist, I can make the change. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Correct the dates for early 2007 entries: "Illegal" by Shakira ascended to number one on 22 January 2007, and stayed there for two weeks more, then "Smack That" climbed to number one on 12 February, and "Illegal" ascended to the summit again on 19 February. Then there's an archive from the 5 March edition that shows that "Illegal" has climbed to number one again and that "Smack That" has fallen from number one to five... Please correct the dates for both "Illegal" and "Smack That". Based on that last archive you could conclude that "Smack That" spent a second week at number one on 26 February; add this to the list as well. Paparazzzi (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Say It Right" ascended to number one on 19 March. It climbed again to number one on 4 June, which means that "What Goes Around..." by Justin did not reach the top in June, but in the last week of May.Paparazzzi (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC) "Relax" by Mika reached number one on 15 October.Paparazzzi (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC) @Paparazzzi: I have included a note in the lead regarding the fact that the website was unupdated at times. And also, many thanks for the archives that you (somehow) found :) Greets and thanks for the comments; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say about this nomination, my comments have been addressed, I have reviewed the sources and everything is fine, the prose is well-written. So I support this nomination. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)

Comments I am uncertain about the "As of 2004" wording in this part: (As of 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show). The wording implies to me that it is 2004 to the present, but that is not true since the chart is no longer active and has been replaced with something else. I would revise this part to avoid this misreading. If the chart was still running, it would say "the chart is" instead of "the chart was". However, I do get your point. Maybe you have a better wording, cause I can't come up with anything at the moment? To be fair, I am probably over-thinking it. Maybe something like (Start in 2004, the chart was announced during a two-hour radio show)? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC) @Aoba47: I implemented that, this suggestion seems to be fitting. Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC) This may just be me, but for this part, (which initially emerged from a partnership with Bravo.), I would add something in the prose to clarify what Bravo is. May something like: (which initially emerged from a partnership with teen magazine Bravo.)? I would link The Magician in the lead and image caption. I am uncertain about the word "acts" in this part: (The most successful acts were Madonna and Kylie Minogue with). I think something like "artists" would work better here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC) @Aoba47: Done everything apart from the comment. Thank you very much for your input :) Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this for promotion. Great work with the list! Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – While I can't read Romanian-language sources, the reliability of the references appears to be okay, as is the formatting. The link-checker shows no problems, so I'd call the source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (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) 18:25, 14 June 2020 (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) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Toronto

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (specifically, List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong, which just got promoted), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I made one tiny tweak which it was easier to just do than to point out here, but that was all I could find...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Great article - couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts

• I'm not wild about the use of a parish builtin as a source

• Removed, leaving the Catholic newspaper source to verify the statement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Same with Holy Rosary Cathedral's history of itself.

• Alright I've removed it, leaving the two other sources to verify. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I tend to take a dim view of press releases, but the things cited to the Holy See Press Office are more bios than press releases

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:33, 24 May 2020 (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) 18:30, 14 June 2020 (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, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [22].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk and 186.21.15.202 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson is an American actress. Her films have grossed over $14.3 billion worldwide, making Johansson the ninth-highest-grossing box office star of all time. She has various awards for her performance. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 17:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead "she has been nominated for two Academy Awards, two British Academy Film Awards." => "she has been nominated for two Academy Awards and two British Academy Film Awards." "For, Johansson's first leading role" - no reason for that comma "earned her the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role,[3] Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actress,[4] and she was nominated" => "earned her the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role,[3] and the Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Actress,[4] and she was nominated" "In 2003, she starred in UK Film Council's " => "In 2003, she starred in the UK Film Council's " "Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for New Generation Award" - pretty sure the word Award should not be in here twice "which won Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play, Theatre World Award" => "for which she won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play and the Theatre World Award" (it wasn't the play which won) "and she was nominated for the Drama Desk Award" => "and was nominated for the Drama Desk Award" "Since 2010, Scarlett Johansson" - no need to restate her entire name, just use her surname "has received one People's Choice Awards" => "has received one People's Choice Award" No need for either of the commas in that sentence "she was nominated for Academy Award for Best Actress" => "she was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress" "The same year, Johansson appeared in Taika Waititi's comedy-drama Jojo Rabbit (2019)" - you already said it was the same year, so no need to state (2019) at the end of the sentence. Think that's it on the lead, will look at the rest later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the issues raised above. Thank you for the comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• "(shared with Joaquin Phoenix for the OS sex scene)" - what does this mean? What is an OS sex scene? The only OS I know is the Ordnance Survey :-)
• "Outstanding Performers of the Year Award (with Adam Driver" - missing closing bracket
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, What I meant was an on-screen sex scene . ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the words "on screen" are needed. If it happened in a film then it's obviously on screen......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: fixed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to note that something occurring in a film does not always mean it's on screen. Offscreen actions can also occur, and can be rather commonplace in film. Sometimes the genre's conventions can be a reason for this. Soulbust (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's true, but I still don't think it's necessary to specifically state that an award was given for something that occurred "on screen", as that's pretty much a given. If an award was presented specifically for something that occurred offscreen then I can understand mentioning that, because it would be quite unusual, but I don't think the reverse is true....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not much else needed, perhaps a "See Also" link to the FL Scarlett Johansson on screen and stage, but that's just my personal preference. ~ HAL333 05:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have two comments for the lead image caption. I would remove "speaking" to just say "Scarlett Johansson at the..." and the "in San Diego, California" part seems unnecessary to me since the city's name is already in the event's title.
• British Academy Film Award should not be linked twice in the first paragraph.

Overall, wonderful work with the list. Once my relatively nitpick-y comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Aoba47. I have made the changes. Again, Thank you! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review –

• About.com (ref 70) isn't considered reliable for much of anything, much less an FL. Surely there's something stronger than this available?
• All caps in the title of ref 82 should be removed.
• Publishers are needed for refs 109 and 115.
• Those were the only issues I detected, and the link-checker doesn't show any problems with the links. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Giants2008, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• The About.com reference has been replaced with a more reliable source and the formatting issues have been resolved. All of my concerns regarding the sourcing have been addressed, so I think the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Giants2008, Thanks for the review. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:05, 7 June 2020 (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) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (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, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [23].

---

Justin Moore discography

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, my work at this page has been limited to quite recently, although this is because I've only been a user since November. I've been a regular updater at this list since. I believe this list meets, or is very close to meeting, the featured list criteria, and I have compared it formatting wise to other featured lists and the formatting seems consistent with them. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

*Drive-by comment - at just six sentences and less than 800 total characters, the lead needs significant expansion. Take a look at Mac Miller discography, which was promoted last year. Miller has released the same number of albums, yet the lead for his discog is more than three times longer than this one. I think you should be looking to make it closer in length to that. Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your initial feedback and the example. I'm going to be busy in real life for the next day or two, but I'll start working on expanding the lead once I get a chance, hopefully soon. Thanks! Hog Farm (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Done Hog Farm (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Additional comments Change the credit for "Small Town Throwdown" to "Brantley Gilbert (featuring Thomas Rhett and Justin Moore)" (or whatever the exact credit was), as it looks odd not mentioning Moore given that he is the subject of the article Done Some of the music videos are unsourced All the CMT video links just seem to redirect to https://www.youtube.com/user/cmtvideo/ Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC) When I attempted to access the CMT links, they were dead for me, so I replaced all of the music video links. All but the Small Town Throwdown links have been replaced with links to Justin Moore's official website. Is this an appropriate use of a primary source, or should I look for independent verification? I'll get the lead expanded later, when I have a little more time. Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC) No problem with using a primary source per se, the only issue is that it doesn't source any of the directors as far as I can see. Have you tried using the Wayback Machine to retrieve the original CMT pages? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) I have not. Can you point me to the page giving instructions on how to use the Wayback Machine? Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC) WP:WAYBACK. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks! That tool's very helpful. After using the Wayback Machine to restore the links, I looked to find citations for the unsourced music videos. I found citations to verify the directors of all videos except for "If Heaven Wasn't So Far Away" and "Bait a Hook." I could source to IMDb, but I don't consider that website to be very reliable. What's a good recommendation on that issue? Hog Farm (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC) If the director genuinely can't be reliably sourced then I personally wouldn't have an issue with is just being shown as "unknown". I am sure I have seen that in other successfully promoted lists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Done. Sorry about all the stupid questions. Thanks! 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) The videos with the unknown directors still need sources to confirm that they exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Citations inserted Hog Farm (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Looking good now! Two remaining comments from me: Guest singles table needs refs for the chart columns, although obviously it's OK to re-use the ones from above You don't need to have both the website and the publisher in the citation if they are essentially the same eg www.cmt.com and CMT. In cases like this, just show the publisher Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Actually I just noticed one more thing - our article on Moore says (admittedly with no source) "The label then released the digital single "I Could Kick Your Ass"." That single isn't listed here - any particular reason? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC) According to 1, "I Could Kick Your Ass" was released as a digital single, but it doesn't appear to have ever charted and was never released to radio (I recently created a redirect to the applicable album for it). I can easily add it, if its inclusion would be deemed appropriate. Hog Farm (talk) @ChrisTheDude: Justin Moore (album) also does not list "I Could Kick Your Ass" as a single. I know "promotional singles", or singles released early off of an upcoming album for the purposes of promoting the album but not sent to radio generally aren't considered singles (Moore did this with "Jesus and Jack Daniels" on his latest album), but I'm not sure about the ambiguous description as a "digital single". Hog Farm (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC) It's so annoying how the lines have become blurred on these things - when I was young it was easy, if it came out on a piece of vinyl 7 inches across then it was a single, and that was that. As you mentioned above, though, AllMusic refer to it as a single and so does this source, so I would add it to make sure all bases are covered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Added to the table. This single doesn't appear to have charted or been certified by the RIAA, unsurprisingly. Hog Farm (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi

Thoughts Is CMT's hoisting of the video with the stated director an RS? I would think their editorial content would, but I am unsure about this I'll look into this. I'd personally say it would work as verification of the existence of the music video and for the director, but not anything else. CMT is a reliable source, and the music video pages are basically just an acknowledgement of "Yes, this exists, this is who made it". If you disagree with this interpretation, I can try to find replacement sources. Hog Farm (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC) tasteofcountry.com. Taste of Country. looks awkward to me. I would just go with Taste of Country. Same with Sounds Like Nashville and The Boot They all look like RSes to me I've got the formatting done, I'll work on the publication dates over the next couple days. Hog Farm (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Citations need publication dates where available I believe I've added all of the dates for refs with definite dates, some of the CMT video pages the date on the page seems to refer to the date the video was released, not the date of the webpage. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) @Guerillero: - I believe I've addressed everything so far. Anything additional, or stuff I didn't quite do right? Hog Farm (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe		) 12:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Comments - hate to see this stall at this stage, so my opining (and this will be submitted as WikiCup evidence). You use EP in the infobox but haven't explained what that is in the lead. Explained Don't use "hash" (or "pound" I believe Americans say) to mean "number" per MOS:HASH. Fixed Once you fixed that, the S in "#1 Singles" Singles should be lower case. Done " (including one guest appearance and one release from a multi-artist tribute album)." this kind of minutiae is better dealt with in the main body. Removed " in 2008. In 2009," repetitive prose. Rephrased "Moore released his self-titled debut album in 2009" that's the same year as before so you could add "also" here to make sure our readers see that. I've rephrased a lot of the content around that, I'm not sure that's necessary now. If you disagree, I can change it though. "album Outlaws Like Me, " comma after album. Done Link certified appropriately e.g. Music recording certification. Done Really dislike the "Of Moore's singles" start. Why not "Seven of Moore's singles..."? Fixed Billboard's -> Billboard's. Check the coding here to ensure the apostrophe doesn't crash into the italic text. Fixed ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" back in the day I urged people to add "or was not released in that territory" because usually there was no evidence that the items in question had even been released in the places they didn't chart. Added for all but the other charted songs. Since the only two columns for that were US Country and US Country Airplay, it's safe to say the additional disclaimer isn't necessary. "number 8 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart" chart name is overlinked. Done Other charted songs in the infobox says 2 but there are 3 in that section. Fixed. That section was added by an IP awhile back, and I never checked it for accuracy. Oops. Ref 4, No SHOUTING in the ref title and do you really mean "auspPop"? "auspOp" is apparently correct. Fixed title case. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: - I've replied to all your points. Can you look over it to make sure I got everything fixed as desired? Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Cool. One more thing, consistency in the refs. You link Billboard sometimes, you don't link CMT at all, and you link RIAA every time. Pick a strategy and roll it out across all refs. And ensure all have at least a publication and/or an accessdate but be consistent. Compare ref 11 and 12, the former has no accessdate for example. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC) - The RIAA linking is from a template, so for consistency, I'll link in all places. @The Rambling Man: - I think I've got all of these, linked Billboard, RIAA, and CMT at all places, and all refs should have either an accessdate or an archive date. Hog Farm (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support apologies for the delay, gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:33, 9 June 2020 (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) 18:10, 14 June 2020 (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, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [24].

---

Bruno Mars videography

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive look at Bruno Mars' videography to today. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the music videos, directors and a small description of the video's plot. I'll try to update it constantly as new videos are released, like I have done with all the works for the artist mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

*Comments on the lead "various music videos, films, television shows, and one television commercial" - last sentence of the lead says two commercials "After guest appearing in music videos, including "Long Distance" and "Wavin' Flag (Coca-Cola Celebration Mix)", between 2008 and 2010" - say who these were by "he was first featured on the hooks" - what does this mean? "His work with the Dechard" - presume that "the" is not meant to be there "He has appeared on Saturday Night Live three times; by the second time he appeared" - word "by" should not be there I will look at the tables later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Comments on the tables Songs starting with "the" should sort on the next word "The video features photo backdrops of other cities like London and Tokyo." - other than what? "of beautiful women pictures" => "of pictures of beautiful women" "in a scene B.o.B plays guitar" => "in one scene B.o.B plays guitar" "Mars artistic abilities" => "Mars's artistic abilities" "In the way to her house, he meets some unpleasant personas" => "On the way to her house, he meets some unpleasant people" "just to find his beloved with another man" => "and then finds his beloved with another man" "ends up in a railroad track" => "ends up on a railroad track" "a psychedelic, "acid trip" setting" - no reason for comma there "were several women are dancing" => "where several women are dancing" "As she has been "fooling around" with someone else's man (Mars). " - this is not a complete sentence "Isabella and Mars' affair" => earlier the article uses "Mars's" - be consistent "Then, the former performers" => performs "in a piano" => on a piano (presumably, unless he is actually inside it) " followed by her coming in Mars' room." => " followed by her coming into Mars' room." "Finesse (song) link needs to be piped "sing to one and another." => "sing to one another." HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Adressed every comment except the first one on the table as I'm not sure what you want there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC) "The Lazy Song", for example, should sort as if it starts with L, and the same thing for other songs that start with the word "The". You will need to use a {{sort}} template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Everything was addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) You didn't do the sort template quite right - I have fixed it for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and fixes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe		) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments I will submit this review as part of the WikiCup. "Bruno Mars performing in Houston, Texas on November 24, 2010" should have a GEOCOMMA after Texas. You correctly use B.o.B. (with three periods) in the lead but not in the table. I'm not clear what a "home video" is in this context, is it a homemade job? Link stop motion. Five paras in the lead is a little too much per MOS:LEAD. If you need all that explanatory text, consider moving some of it to the relevant sections below and have a true lead which summarises the article as a whole rather than carrying all the prose. CeeLo has no space. "doesn't" avoid contractions. No need to link major geographical locations like London or Tokyo, they are well known, unambiguous and it's unlikely a reader would ever suddenly want to click on those in this context. "Victoria’s Secret" avoid curly apostrophe per MOS:CURLY. "FOX " our article on that show just calls it Fox. "K'Naan" -> "K'naan" What does "Himself" mean when the role he was playing was called "Little Elvis"? It was Mars himself, expect younger. Channels should be linked every time in the TV appearances table because it's sortable. No point in having a sortable table (commercials) when only one item is listed. Consistent formatting for ref columns, i.e. with hover-over text, unsortable etc. Spaced hyphens in the ref titles should be en-dashes per MOS:DASH. That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC) @The Rambling Man:First of all, thank you so much for your kind comments. Secondly, I have adressed every comment. I would also appreciated another look at the lead, to see if there are any other points I could summarise. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and help. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing thoughts

• I'm uncomfortable with the use of primary youtube sources
• Ma, Jaeson; Mars, Bruno (performers); Chang, Michael (director); Chou, Christina (executive producer) (2010). "Love" (music video). is also a primary source
• Idolator looks like a blog
• Gold 1; Mars, Bruno; Ma, Jaeson (performers); Zagarini, Claudio; Zeynali, Michel (directors); Giorgilli, Vanni; Singer, Stephen (executive producers) (2012). "This Is My Love" (music video). is a primary source

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Idolator is a reliable source. I removed Youtube as a primary source, adding others to replace it. However I can't find other sources, than YouTube for "Love" and This Is My Love" videos. Do you have any ideas to fix said issue? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess you can cite the videos themselves. But I really wish we had secondary sources. This feels like a perennial problems with videographies. Thank you for looking --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

At that time Mars was not the artist with the media coverage he has today. Moreover, I can't really remove those videos from his videography. I added the Youtube sources, better than the primary sources. Do you want me to archive them as well? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. I think that is as good as we are going to get --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: As of right now yes, If I do happen to come across better sources I will add them. I have address your concerns, if there is anything else I can do, let me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and support. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2020 (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) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This list is about a German racing driver called Sebastian Vettel, who is a four-time Formula One world champion with 53 race victories over a 12-year career. I believe that the list complies with the featured list criteria and submit this list for all constructive criticism. MWright96 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

;Comments "Vettel moved to the Ferrari team in 2015, twice finishing the championship runner-up" - I would say "Vettel moved to the Ferrari team in 2015, twice finishing as championship runner-up" "His first Grand Prix win came in the rain affected" - need a hyphen in rain-affected "In the next two years with Ferrari, he won five races in both years and one in 2019" - this reads really weirdly, because the first clause refers to two years but then the second clearly refers to three. "ahead of second-placed of Ferrari driver Fernando Alonso," - don't think that second "of" is needed "Race number in Vettel's Formula One career; for example "50" signifies Vettel's 50th Formula One race." - pedantic, I know, but it seems odd that the example number is 50, which doesn't actually appear in the table. Don't need the comma before "respectively" in the note. Think that's it from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed all of your concerns. MWright96 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Dey subrata

There is only one suggestion, it would be good if you add ref. 1 and 10 as external links too seeing the importance and number of times the references used, and also the scope of future improvement and for further research. Dey subrata (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Dey subrata: Added external links MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- seems ok to me. All the best. Dey subrata (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Well done! ~ HAL333 15:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources look fine, and the link-checker tool doesn't indicate any problems. I'd say this sourcing review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "and becoming the youngest driver to score a world championship point in Formula One." - change and becoming to 'to become, to avoid WP:NOUNING
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Vettel was signed to race for Toro Rosso..." I'd just say 'Vettel joined Toro Rosso' makes the sentence flow better
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• "...was the youngest two, three and four-time world champion in history." Do we have a ref for this?
  • Added a reference from BBC Sport MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• "His first Grand Prix win came in the rain-affected 2008 Italian Grand Prix on 14 September, becoming the youngest driver..." change the comma after September to a semi-colon and replace becoming with 'he became' to avoid the NOUN+ing structure
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• "His first season with Red Bull in 2009 saw him win four races and finish runner-up to Jenson Button in the points standings." -> He won four races in his first season with Red Bull in 2009 to finish runner-up to Jenson Button.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• "His 2013 season included 13 Grand Prix victories, equalling seven-time world champion Michael Schumacher's record of most wins in a season." change equalling to which equalled and change the of after Michael Schumacher's record to for.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Again, change equalling to 'to equal'
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Change note a to "The current holder of this record is Max Verstappen who finished seventh at 2015 Malaysian Grand Prix when he was 17 years, 180 days old.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Likewise, change note b to "The current holder of this record is Max Verstappen who won the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix when he was 18 years, 228 days old. Only link to Verstappen in the first note too.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. I've copyedited some of the image captions to make them flow better as well. NapHit (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @NapHit: Thank you for your comments. I've addressed them all. MWright96 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2020 (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.