Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2021

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, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

Wales national football team results (1980–1999)

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Next up on the ongoing Wales results series is the 80s and 90s. We're approaching the end now and this one follows the same formula as the previous lists which have all achieved promotion. Once again, thanks to HawkAussie for their assistance in converting the table. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "a late goal for Yugoslavia in their final match against Bulgaria saw them finish second in their group" - very confusing here as to who "they" are/were. Any way to rephrase?
• "coupled with their opponents subsequent victories" - missing apostrophe
• In match 417, Mark Bowen (footballer) is inexplicably piped as "Mark Brown"
• Note a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
• Almost all (possibly even all) of the articles in the extensive "see also" list are linked in the table, so there's really no need to also have them under "see also" (which is intended only for articles which are tangentially linked to a subject but not directly mentioned in its article)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for taking a look as always Chris, I've amended the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Our article on the BH Championship also cites "hooliganism" among the reasons the competition was axed.
• "winning the tournament ... win the competition" bit repetitive.
• "played due to players refusing to travel following" -> "played after players refused to travel following" to avoid the slightly jarring -ing -ing?
• "For the third consecutive tournament, Wales narrowly failed to qualify for" maybe "Wales narrowly failed to qualify for their third consecutive tournament.."
• "they won 47.." don't you normally say how many they drew and lost as well?
• Perhaps could include biggest wins and defeats and any streaks in the lead as well?
• "(o.g)" missing a .
• "Statistics" refs I would normally order alphabetically.

Otherwise all good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review as always TRM. I think I've addressed everything above, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96

• "Wales came within one match of winning the tournament in the 1980–81 season, needing only to beat Northern Ireland in their final game but the match " - repetition of "match"
• "In the latter, a late goal for Yugoslavia in their final match against Bulgaria saw them overtake Wales to win the qualifying group." - a wikilink can be added to the text in bold and directed to UEFA Euro 1984 qualifying
• "A defeat in their last qualifying match against Germany, coupled with their opponents' subsequent victories in their last matches," - similar point to the first"
• "led to Germany winning the group and the resulting qualification place for the 1992 European Championships." - similar query but a direct wikilink to UEFA Euro 1992 qualifying
• The publication date of Reference 8 "Jock Stein: Triumph and tragedy in Cardiff" is incorrect and should be 10 September 2020
• Consider wikilink the works and publications of the references where possible

Those are all the things that stood out in my read through. Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @MWright96: Thanks for the review, I've amended everything above. Kosack (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Support MWright96 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Wales came within one match of winning the tournament in the 1980–81 season, needing only to beat Northern Ireland the final game was never played after players refused to travel following an escalation of The Troubles in Ireland." I'd split this sentence up then you can avoid the awkward use of needing in the middle.
• "The last tournament was held in the 1983–84 season and was won by Northern Ireland..." -> The last tournament was held in the 1983–84 season, which Northern Ireland won

  No, they didn't win the season, they won the tournament... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm still not keen on the current structure. Maybe "Northern Ireland won the last tournament, held in the 1983–84 season, on goal difference... NapHit (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Wales narrowly failed to qualify for the third consecutive tournament in the 1986 FIFA World Cup..." -> Wales narrowly failed to qualify for the third consecutive tournament, the 1986 FIFA World Cup,
• Does the head-to-head table need a caption? Feel like this is a requirement of MOS:DTT.

  The tables have a hidden caption as it is the same as the section heading, as noted by Harris in an earlier review.

• These Football Times should be italicised as the article uses italics.

That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• @NapHit: Thanks for the review, I've amended everything above and left a comment on another. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Support - My concerns have been dealt with. Great list. NapHit (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Quick comment – "They needed only to beat Northern Ireland the final game was never played after players refused to travel following an escalation of The Troubles in Ireland." This feels like a run-on sentence in its current form. It probably can be fixed easily enough by adding some connecting words. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: Fixed. Kosack (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing this below Aza24 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• The linking is a bit inconsistent—if you're only linking the first mentions then the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation should be linked in the statistics section; Y Lolfa could be linked as well

Reliability

• No issues here

Verifiability

• Seems fine, checked 5 and 10
• Pass for source review, since the linking issue(s) aren't pertinent enough to prevent a pass, though you may want to address them anyways. Aza24 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (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) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (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, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [2].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Jake Gyllenhaal

Nominator(s): DanCherek (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of awards and nominations received by American actor and producer Jake Gyllenhaal. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria after I spent the last few days expanding and sourcing it. This is my first FLC — I will address all comments to the best of my ability! Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I had a really good try but couldn't find anything to pick up on. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Could not find one mistake, not even with grammar or WP:MOS; this is basically a perfectly crafted list, impressive work! Wretchskull (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisTheDude and Wretchskull; this is a really good list! One quick question: is there a reason you didn't include every award in the infobox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thank you! My primary concern was mobile viewers, for whom the infobox table is automatically expanded with no option to collapse it. Basically they'll read the first paragraph of the lead and then have to scroll through the giant table of numbers before getting to the rest of the lead and the actual list. I thought including the major awards was a good compromise, though I've seen it done various ways in similar featured lists so happy to adjust anything if people suggest otherwise. DanCherek (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! It's not what I do, but I understand the logic and see no reason to oppose the nomination over it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything checks out okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support on prose. I got nothing... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:48, 29 May 2021 (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) 22:14, 30 May 2021 (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, 24 May 2021 (UTC) [3].

---

List of cervids

Nominator(s): PresN 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Having finished my 10-list series of Carnivora (last one pending promotion), I decided to move on to this list of deer of the world, thinking that despite the 53-ish species in the family Cervidae that it was a pretty well-defined group and would be straightforward. Not so, as it turns out- while the concept of a "deer" is fairly easy in the English-speaking countries, the borders between species is pretty nebulous for some genera. The consensus is currently at 53, like I said, but between the brocket deer of South America and the muntjacs of southeast Asia, there are either 4 species or 25+ in those two groups, depending on the source you look at. That made sourcing the exact sizes and preferred food of each species a huge pain, doubly so when for many of the species the research is scattershot: there was one species that as far as I could tell they only measured the exact dimensions of a single individual ever... and then did a rigorous DNA analysis on that individual to make sure it really was a distinct species from the slightly different brocket deer in the same area. A statistically robust sample that is not.

Anyways, I'll stop complaining; this is a list of all of the deer ("cervids") in the world, following the same pattern as my lists of carnivorans. If you've seen any of those it's pretty much the same but with antlers and fewer sharp teeth this time. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if I'm qualified, but I went over it it and saw no formatting, grammatical, spelling, or other mundane errors. The only thing I'd question is the restorations of prehistoric species: are they professional restorations, and if not, did they go through Paleoart review? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• @SilverTiger12: I see that the D. elegans one did, and obviously the cave art one doesn't need to, but the other four were just images that were in use in articles already. --PresN 04:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that that section has now been removed and my question about the pictures rendered a moot point, I am happy to support. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Diet: Ggrasses, mast, and shrubs" - typo there ;-)
• "In addition–extant cervids," - should this be "In addition to the extant cervids,"? The dash looks odd........
• Think that's it from me - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Both fixed! The dash was an overactive find-and-replace that I missed. Thanks! --PresN 19:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• The extinct species have major omissions. Fossilworks/Paleobiology Database can never be considered an exhaustive source for all extinct taxa of a group. Roman Croitor's 2019 book Plio-Pleistocene Deer of Western Palearctic: Taxonomy, Systematics, Phylogeny (open access) is probably the most comprehensive recent source on extinct fossil deer, but it only considers western Eurasia, and does not cover eastern Eurasia or the Americas. It may be worth having this article cover extant species only, as for some of the extinct species their genus placement is disputed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Hemiauchenia:If it's going to be an issue I'd rather drop all extinct species. Given that the large majority of extant deer species are not found in western Eurasia, a source on extinct taxa only covering that area wouldn't be that helpful on its own. While I know that the PDB is not an exhaustive source, this is the tenth list like this I've done, and only one (Canidae) had any sort of authoritative source for global extinct species. If relying on PDB (which is at least global and doesn't contradict itself) isn't good enough, then it's essentially impossible to source any such section like this- I'm not well-versed in paleobiology enough to track down and resolve a dozen contradictory books... which is probably why every list of extinct species on wikipedia I've ever seen is almost completely unreferenced, come to think of it. Anyways, I'll leave it for now to see other reviewer's opinions, but I'm open to dropping it. --PresN 19:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone who's dealt with prehistoric deer taxonomy when working on the Megaceroides algericus and Irish elk articles, all I can say is that it's a total mess and in my opinion it's probably best to exclude the fossil taxa entirely to avoid headaches. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I was all set to support, but have now been thrown into confusion by the above. Let me know when that's resolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia and ChrisTheDude: After consideration, and recognizing that Hemiauchenia knows a lot more about this area than I do, I'm going to go ahead and remove the prehistoric section. --PresN 15:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

With that clarified I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. Prose: I read the whole thing, can't find a flaw. The coding seems fine. I sampled the links in the tables; there are no sortable columns to check.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is apparently well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). I'd argue that all relevant retrieval dates are present; I think some could say that links to, for instance, "Waring, G. H" can't be counted on to exactly reproduce printed material, and they might argue you need a retrieval date.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The images are outstanding. Above and beyond.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Added access-dates to the cite web that was missing them- I got so used to the journal cites that I missed it. --PresN 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support passes my source review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Could link biome.

• Linked

• "Schomburgk's deer, went extinct in the 20th century" can we be more specific than a range of 100 years?

• For once yes, in many cases we just have "someone thought they saw one in 1920 and it's never been seen since", but in this case it's probably 1938.

• "consists of 53 extant species" yet when I add up all IUCN categories, I get 53 including one extinct species".

• So, between this and your last review, I'm starting to realize that I'm bad with counting (or at least keeping all numbers up to date when editing the list)- it's 53 including Schomburgk's and 19 genera, you're right

• "belonging to 20 genera" I've counted it a couple of times and get 19 each time? And 52 species again.
• "Genus Alces (Gray, 1821) – two species" one listed?

• Fixed

• "1,000-1,500" etc, should be en-dash.

• Fixed all

• Avoid auto-collapsing those lists, especially as you're not doing it consistently.

• I've been doing it consistently across all of the lists so far- autocollapsed if there's 7 or more, which is the number that makes the box stretch vertically given the size I constrain images to. The template does not collapse the information on mobile browsers or screen readers, I've checked.

• "Small red brocket" says "Size: Unknown" but there's a photo of one!

• Yeah, a photo is not a published general size range for an entire species. "Unknown" doesn't literally mean "could be anything", it means "no verifiable published data in an RS", and no researchers have published measurement data for that species

• Why do ranges change colour from red to dark green? Is there a key for this information?

• Range colors don't have meaning unless specified, whoever made the maps just tended to pick reds for some genera and greens some other times

• In the "Bawean island of Indonesia" image, what does the orange blob represent?

• It's an arrow pointing at the island

• Surprised there's no indication of muntjac in the UK. We have loads over here, I see them almost daily. The muntjac article lists twelve species but only eleven in this list, is there an explanation?

• Muntjacs are native to Southeast Asia, but the Reeves's muntjac was introduced to the UK in 1925 and I missed it; added that bit to that species
• The 12th species is the Sumatran muntjac, which is not listed in Mammal Species of the World (2005) (aka MSW3); the shape of this list (per wiki-wide consensus of the mammal projects) is to use MSW3 as a base and then adjust for newer research. the Sumatran muntjac does not have consensus to be it's own species- for example, while Muntiacus lists it as a species, its own article says it's a subspecies of the Indian muntjac before reversing course and saying that maybe it is a species because the IUCN lists it. The IUCN, however, lists it as "data deficient" and explains that it's because most sources don't consider it a species, sometimes explicitly so, so it's impossible to have a literature review that focuses just on that type of muntjac. As a result, it's in this list as a subspecies of the Indian muntjac.

That's it for a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks, responded! --PresN 19:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• @FLC director and delegates: If I may be so bold, I'm guessing this one has been here for some time because its in need of a source review. But it seems Guerillero has already done one (and passed it) above. I've glanced through and can only reach the same conclusion as Guerillero. Again, sorry if this is overstepping. Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Aza24: It's probably a bigger problem that I'm the nominator, TRM already supported, which leaves Giants... except that tax season is extra long this year so they're still very busy. I'm sure it will be promoted eventually, I'm not in a rush. Thanks for trying to help! --PresN 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! My rationale was seeing it on the backlog, so I just assumed the source review above had been missed. But yes, not trying to rush anyone at all either. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't agree that there are no reliable sources for the sizes and diets of many of the species listed as "unknown." For example, The Handbook of Mammals of the World contains size and diet information for most of these species, and I believe that is a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Rlendog: Do you have access to it? I'd love to cite it, but given that each of the 9 volumes of The Handbook of Mammals of the World is $200 and there's no electronic version to borrow/buy/preview (on google books or elsewhere) I don't have access to it. --PresN 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do have access. I'll try to add in the information this weekend. Although Harvard formatting is not my forte so you may need to fix the format of the references. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Rlendog: Excellent! Don't worry about formatting at all- you can feel free to just dump data + page numbers on the talk page if that's easier for you, or just upload pictures of the pages somewhere and I'll sort through them, or whatever is most convenient for you- it's a lot of deer and I don't want to overwhelm you. --PresN 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @PresN: I added the missing information I was able to find. The footnotes probably need to be reformatted to the Harvard style. I also found size information about Schomburgk's deer here but this doesn't seem like it would meet the criteria for a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @PresN: I also added some information from the Handbook to your List of suines although there wasn't a lot of information for the items that were unknown on that list. Rlendog (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Rlendog: Thanks so much! I'm going to have to find a way to get that set when I next have access to university libraries. I'll sort out the formatting shortly. And yeah, I saw Ultimate Ungulate but I don't think it meets the criteria either. --PresN 01:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Formatting all fixed. --PresN 03:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (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, 24 May 2021 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Black Mirror episodes

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As my 25,000th edit exactly, I'm nominating List of Black Mirror episodes for featured list status. It was hard to find recent (post-2010) list of episode articles to model this on, and some facets of the topic make it quite unique (e.g. every episode is standalone and the show has had two different distributors). However, after some expansion and multiple rounds of copyediting, I'm now satisfied it meets the FL criteria. I'm looking forward to the feedback. If promoted, this will bring us one step closer to Black Mirror as a good topic. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "a special "White Christmas"" - "a special entitled "White Christmas"" would be better IMO
• "He lives frugally until affording" => "He lives frugally until he can afford"
• "after their daughter died without the option to" => "after their daughter died without the option to do so" (I was always told not to end a sentence with a preposition)
• That's all I got as far as the end of series 3, will look at the rest later.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, done the ones so far. — Bilorv (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• "can track Sara's vision, hearing and health via a tablet" - might be worth changing to "tablet computer" or similar, just to make it 100% clear that it doesn't refer to an aspirin :-)
• "and chases Bella via car" - slightly unclear as to whether it is Bella or the guard (or both) who is in a car
  • It is in fact both. I've changed this whole bit to give more detail of the scenes, as I think I was trying to summarise it in too few words. Let me know if the new version can be improved. — Bilorv (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• That's it - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, changes made for these. — Bilorv (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "British network" perhaps "television" in there.
• "episodes, not including the interactive" perhaps it would be clearer to say "episodes and one interactive", since that interactive film is listed here in this list of episodes...
• "Actors rarely appear in more than one episode" I think what's also interesting and probably more relevant than the actors is the easter eggs that are found in the later episodes that refer back to other (unrelated) episodes.
  • The point of this is to distinguish it from other anthology series that readers might be familiar with, such as American Horror Story (same characters throughout a season, heavy cast overlap between seasons), The Twilight Zone (common narrator, some actors star more than once) and Inside No. 9 (almost all episodes star the two creators). For the Easter eggs: added though many instalments make small references known as "Easter eggs" to previous episodes, such as through in-universe news channels and briefly-seen text — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "in December 2014.[6] In 2015" bit repetitive, could say "The following year"?
• interactive film has a link.
• "with unhappy endings" often with...
• I'm not an expert, but... I have mild trouble with the colours selected to delineate each season. They are understated and fit the tone of BM, for sure, but I am struggling to see the clear difference between, say, 1 & 3, and Film & 5.
  • I'm no fan either, but convention is to have them match the DVD release cover art, as I found when changing it once and getting reverted. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Callow have sex" this jars for some reason, why isn't it "has"?
  • I think the tense is correct, like in the sentence "I demand you have another look" (rather than "I demand you has another look"). — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • But this is third person, i.e Callow, not first person... "I demand Callow has another look". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, you're right. Changed. — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is it worth noting that the events of episode 1 were an entry for the Turner Art Prize (in-episode)?
  • I think you've misremembered slightly—Bloom doesn't win the Turner Prize for this (he won it before the episode begins), but one art critic says it's the best artwork of the 21st century. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "in screens and he watches a screen" watches "one" or "one of them"
  • I've put "watches another one" to not imply he's cycling in his bedroom. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Special table format is a bit out-of-whack.
  • Fixed by Aylienator before I got to it (much appreciated). — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "a murder-suicide." our article uses an en-dash.
• "She causes a scene" could we make this more encyc.?
  • Now "She argues with a staff member". — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• No viewership for Series 3 etc?
  • As above—none exist for Netflix episodes (as described in "Ratings"). — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "However, we see from" we see... not great.
  • Is it better as just "However, Cooper's entire experience ..." — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "an augmented reality" this was already ilnked.
• "called "ADIs". " could this be expanded?
• "of NCA agent " don't use the abbreviation without explanation.
• "researches a car accident" worth somehow encapsulating the fact that this was a completely independent event from the main cyclist killing?
  • Yeah, I've just said "researches an unrelated car accident". I did consider this confusion, actually, but forgot to do anything to fix it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Coach will eventually assign them lifelong partners, with a 99.8% success rate." why is this the second sentence? Chronologically this doesn't arrive until the end of the episode, right?
  • Well, there's two unrelated instances of the 99.8% statistic. The artificial participants in the system in-app are told at the start that there is a 99.8% success rate of Coach, and Frank and Amy talk to Coach about it early on (hence why it's mentioned early). Later, it turns out that 99.8% of the 1000 simulations rebelled and the real Frank and Amy are told they are 99.8% compatible. These two identical stats are actually unrelated, and we're only mentioning the first. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I forgot that! No such thing as a coincidence here....!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• "but say that there" agree?
• "an artificial intelligence toy" you linked and abbreviated artificial intelligence above, perhaps just use AI here.
• Row scopes for the home media release table.
• Refs 36 to 41 spaced hyphens in titles should be en-dashes.

That's about all I have here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Great, all responded to and/or fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, couple of responses. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, fixed. Thanks for the comments. — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Putting Bandersnatch's release date in parentheses feels awkward; I think it should be incorporated into the sentence like the other release dates. The cast lists use the Oxford comma inconsistently; either use it or omit it everywhere. "perform a 're-do'" – this feels like unnecessary information and could be removed. Mike Schur is usually credited as Michael Schur, so I would use that. "in a foreign country, with the help of MASS" – unnecessary comma "killed by ADI" → "killed by ADIs" Black Mirror under General references doesn't need to be in quotes. This is how {{cite web}} works, but I can rewrite it without the template if you feel strongly about this done. — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC) All done except one I've replied to—thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – well done! RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [5]

Formatting

• I know his name is in the title but ref 1 should probably still include the author's name in the appropriate parameters. There's no implication that Charlie Brooker is the author, he could merely hold an opinion that someone else is reporting on
  • Yep, was more oversight than intentional—fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• It is weird how the Metacritic refs don't have quotes around the titles, but I we can't do anything about that because its from the template?
  • Well, I think we'd only want quotes around the Rotten Tomatoes "White Christmas", right? Black Mirror is right to be in italics and "Season X" doesn't normally have quotes. But I think the template is missing a quotes option and I can't work out how I'd change its source code if I wanted to, so if you're fine with it then I might stick to how it is. — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, too minor to fuss over. What I meant was that all titles for your references have quotes around them (e.g. "Black Mirror: Season 3". for ref 22) but Metacritic is just Black Mirror: Season 3 without quotes—no worries though.
• Honestly, I'm not sure the general references section is even needed. The Netflix link doesn't seem to be used as a ref and is already an external link; the Brooker/Jones/Arnopp ref is only used once. If the case is that these are used more than what I'm observing, it needs to be marked such throughout the text
  • These are used to cite the "Written by", "Directed by" and "Cast" section of each episode. Do you want inline citations at the top of the series columns under those headers, and next to the cast list for each episode? Or maybe some text down in the reference section to say "Cast and crew information comes from:"? — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah I see; yes inline citations (maybe in the table header(s)?) would be helpful to increase verifiability. Something as simple as "Writer details are given by Brooker, Jones & Arnopp (2018)", or something similar? Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      • How does it look now? — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Great. Sorry if I was being picky, we just don't want to take any risks on showing people where we're getting certain information. Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Not at all—I appreciate the comments. — Bilorv (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Looks fine

Verifiability

• Not required since you have the chapter, but the page numbers for the chapter could be added if available (ref 8)
• I do wonder where the individual casts are sourced from Aza24 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Added the page numbers. Cast point addressed with the general references comment. Thanks for the review and let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [6].

---

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 22:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now a complete timeline, documenting all the important events of the season. What a journey it has been with all of the articles in the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. I would like to thank Cyclonebiskit for all his help with this list as well. Noah^Talk 22:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from CodingCyclone Great job with this! I just have a few comments: The 2018 Pacific hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation, in which tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The season officially started on May 15 in the eastern Pacific—east of 140°W—and began on June 1 in the central Pacific—between the International Date Lineand 140°W, and ended on November 30. These dates typically cover the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific basin. - this is a bit generic. Can you remove or replace it with something else? I know the most recent WPTC FL has this as well though, so it isn't that big of a deal. Maybe also add "...and began on June 1 in the central Pacific – the region between the..." if you keep it. Added the region part. It seems virtually all of our timelines have the same introduction just to be consistent. NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) The table with the storms and their intensities doesn't seem to fit well with everything else, IMO. Are you open to removing it? The table exists mainly to clarify the date of dissipation for Hector since it exited the basin and to show 96C, which can't be displayed in the timeline image per the current treatment of unofficial storms. It also shows the designations of each system (Walaka was never a TD operationally and thus the 01C was not explicitly mentioned). NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Alright, thanks for providing a justification. It works with the table. :) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Do you need 2 files with Olivia? Well, I didn't want there to be a large gap in the article for images. Given the landfall was historic for two islands, I think both images can be justified. NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) If you do keep the table, use "Tropical depression" and "Tropical storm" in the intensities. After all, you use "Category 1 hurricane." Not sure what the issue is here other than capitalization. NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Exactly. I don't think it should be capitalized that way. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Try varying the prose a bit. I'm seeing a lot of "strengthened" and "weakened". Try throwing in the occasional "intensified," "degenerated," and the like. Actually intensifies and strengthens are both used about equally (intensifies is used more). Other synonyms aren't very academic or don't fit. I will add in more degenerated since weakened appears to be the main one. NoahTalk 21:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Ok, sure. That works. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Maybe remove dissipations, as they don't have coordinates. They also aren't on other timelines. Done. NoahTalk 21:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Add {{broader|2018 Pacific hurricane season}} to the top of the article. Done. NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Add alt text for the season track map. Done. NoahTalk 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Puerto Escondido links to a disambiguation page. Fixed. NoahTalk 21:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC) That's all I've got! Great job with this, a timeline for such an active season is not an easy feat! (please ping me when it's done! :)) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 20:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC) @CodingCyclone: Should be everything now. NoahTalk 21:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Wow! That was really fast. One second, I'll add support. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 21:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from LightandDark2000 There are really a small handful of issues that I have been able to pick out, mostly involving the same issues. I think you did a phenomenal job here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Lead Link tropical cyclone. Done. NoahTalk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Link Mexico. I was told not to link countries/geographic regions that most people should be familiar with. NoahTalk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC) The season began with the formation of Tropical Depression One-E, developed on May 10, and ended with the dissipation of the season's final storm, Tropical Storm Xavier, dissipated as a tropical cyclone on November 5. Change "developed" to "which developed", and change "dissipated" to "which dissipated". The sentence would sound more grammatically-sound after these changes. Done. NoahTalk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Summary table Question: Aren't the storms with their own articles supposed to be linked via their names? This is how things are done in the season articles. If not, then you can just ignore this one. They are linked in the timeline map directly above it and in the infobox. I think that should be sufficient. NoahTalk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Body Hurricane Bud reaches peak intensity with winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a pressure of 943 mbar (hPa; 27.85 inHg), Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". We should be consistent with how we handle things. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Bud intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane about 280 mi (450 km) south of Manzanillo, Colima. Link Manzanillo, Colima. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Bud weakens into a post-tropical cyclone about 140 miles (220 km) south-southwest of Huatabampito, Mexico. Link "post-tropical cyclone". Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Five-E develops from an area of low pressure about 730 miles (1,175 km) southwest of the southern tip of Baja California. Link Baja California. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Ileana peaks with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) and a pressure of 998 mbar (29.47inHg) approximately 170 miles (490 km) southeast of Manzanillo, Mexico. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Hector reaches peak intensity with winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) and a pressure of 936 mbar (27.64 inHg) approximately 890 miles (1,430 km) east-southeast of Hilo, Hawaii. Same as the above. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane John degenerates into a tropical storm while located roughly 275 mi (445 km) southwest of Punta Abreojos, Baja California Sur. Link Punta Abreojos. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Kristy reaches peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 70 mph (110 km/h) and a minimum pressure of 991 mbar (29.3 inHg) while located roughly 1,170 mi (1,885 km) west-southwest of Punta Eugenia, Baja California Sur. Link Punta Eugenia. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Kristy weakens into a tropical depression while located roughly 1,095 mi (1,760 km) southwest of Point Conception, California. Link Point Conception, and also link California. Done. NoahTalk 03:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Hector crosses the International Dateline and enters the Japan Meteorological Agency's area of responsibility. Maybe add "(JMA)" after Japan Meteorological Agency, because this is a common acronym. I have been told not to employ acronymns unless I plan to use them. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Lane peaks with winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a pressure of 926 mbar (27.3 inHg), about 360 miles (580 km) south of Hilo, Hawaii. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Norman peaks with winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) and a pressure of 937 mbar (27.7 inHg), approximately 520 miles (835 km) southwest of the southern tip of Baja California. Same as the above. Done. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Miriam peaks as a Category 2 hurricane with winds of 100 mph (155 km/h) and a pressure of 974 mbar (28.8 inHg) approximately 910 miles (1,465 km) east of Hilo, Hawaii. Same as the above. Done. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Seventeen-E forms about 365 mi (590 km) southeast of Socorro Island. Link Socorro Island. Done. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) that absorbed the remnants of Hurricane Lane transitions into a tropical or subtropical cyclone approximately 1,015 mi (1,635 km) south of Adak, Alaska. Link subtropical cyclone. Done. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Olivia rapidly intensifies into a Category 2 hurricane about 215 mi (345 km) west-southwest of Clarion Island. Link "rapidly intensifies" to rapid intensification. Linked on Aletta instead. NoahTalk 03:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Olivia further intensifies into a Category 4 hurricane and reaches its peak intensity with maximum winds of 130 mph (215 km/h) and a pressure of 951 mbar (hPa; 28.08 inHg) about 950 mi (1,525 km) west of Clarion Island. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Nineteen-E develops from an elongated trough just east of Loreto, Baja California Sur over the Gulf of California. Link "trough" to trough (meteorology). Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Nineteen-E reaches its peak intensity with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h) and a pressure of 1002 mbar (29.6 inHg) about 60 mi (95 km) west-southwest of Ciudad Obregón. Same as the above. Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Twenty-E forms from a tropical wave while located roughly 405 mi (650 km) south-southwest of Manzanillo, Mexico. Link tropical wave. Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Rosa peaks with winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) and a pressure of 936 mbar (27.6 inHg), while 895 mi (1,440 km) south-southwest of Punta San Antonio, Mexico. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Sergio strengthens into a Category 1 hurricane about 810 mi (1,305 km) west-southwest of Zihuatanejo, Mexico. Link Zihuatanejo. Already linked on the mention for Carlotta. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Sergio peaks with winds of 140 mph (220 km/h) and a pressure of 942 mbar (27.8 inHg), about 825 mi (1,330 km) southwest of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Twenty-Two-E forms while located roughly 75 mi (120 km) south-southwest of Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán. Link "Lázaro Cárdenas" to Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán, and link also Michoacán. Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Depression Twenty-Three-E forms while located roughly 90 mi (145 km) west-southwest of Puerto San Jose, Guatemala. Link Puerto San José, and also link Guatemala. Did first one, but the second one shouldn't be linked per reasoning above for Mexico. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Willa's rapid intensification culminates with it becoming a Category 5 hurricane roughly 200 mi (320 km) west-southwest of Manzanillo, Colima. It reaches its peak intensity at this time with maximum winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a pressure of 925 mbar (27.32 inHg). Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Vicente weakens to a tropical depression around 95 mi (155 km) southwest of Playa Azul, Mexico. Link "Playa Azul" to Playa Azul (Michoacán). Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Hurricane Willa rapidly degenerates to a tropical storm due to a combination of mountainous terrain and strong wind shear while located about 10 mi (15 km) southeast of Durango City, Durango. change "degenerates to" to "degenerates into". Also, add a comma after "tropical storm". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Tropical Storm Xavier reaches peak intensity with winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) and a pressure of 996 mbar (29.41 inHg), about 130 mi (210 km) southwest of Manzanillo, Colima. Change "pressure" to "minimum pressure". Done. NoahTalk 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Sources You might want to archive the Bloomberg News source. Those have a nasty habit of becoming dead links after a while. Ran a bot to archive all the links. NoahTalk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC) These are really the only issues that I have found. I think that CodingCyclone got the rest of them. This article is close to becoming a Featured List; it just needs some minor improvements before it's ready. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Now supporting the FL nomination. I think the article is good to go now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC) @LightandDark2000: I don't want to be invasive, but I think that you should collapse your review due to its length as it is a common practice and from what I remember, one of the guidelines here. :) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - this is probably the best hurricane season timeline on Wikipedia. The references and details are on point, and the images are all public domain. Two tiny quips. One, 96C isn't in the timeline graphic at the top of "Timeline of events", which makes sense since it wasn't a proper tropical cyclone. Second, you should spell out PDT/CDT/MDT/HDT/MST/CST on their first usage, I think that's some rule on Wikipedia about spelling out acronyms. It could be confusing at the end that MST/CST aren't spelled out anywhere, and people might not realize that the acronym changed because of the dreaded daylight saving time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I can add a note about the timezone switching due to DST. As for spelling out timezones: Abbreviations for time zones (e.g. GMT and UTC) should not be written out in full in times. Noah^Talk 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding that note. Perfect. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Throughout the season, 26 tropical depressions developed, 23 of which became tropical storms, 13 of them reached hurricane strength, and 10 achieved major hurricane intensity". This could do with breaking up into two sentences. It's also unclear if the 13 and 10 are subsets of the 23 or of the whole 26.

• Technically, it is a subset of both. 13/23 TSs became hurricanes and 13/26 TDs became hurricanes.

• "Several storms severy affected land" - "severely" spelt wrong

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed: [7]

Formatting

• Hmm I'm not sure about the authors for ref 1, it seems like they are references for the reference, so perhaps their inclusion is not necessary? With ref 1 as well, I believe the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory is the publisher, so should be under the parameter; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration feels unnecessary, what do you think?

• Removed the authors since they aren't listed directly at the source and changed the publisher. Noah^Talk 02:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend removing "Miami, Florida" from ref 5 as its the only time you use a location

• Done. Noah^Talk 02:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• First class sourcing—the tweet is less than ideal, but seems perfectly fine in the places it's used

Verifiability

• I'm not sure ref 4 is going to the correct link? Should probably mark it as dead

• Actually, appears this is an older version of ref one so I just replaced it. Noah^Talk 02:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The rest looks good

• @Aza24: I think that should be it. Noah^Talk 03:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks great, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 02:14, 21 May 2021 (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, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [8].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Office (American TV series)

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gotten pretty comfortable writing TV awards lists, and The Office is a popular show, so I figured it's time to bring this up to FL standard. To be honest, I was somewhat surprised this wasn't already covered by The Office task force at WP:TV, and working on this nomination is my way of contributing to their work. Also, interesting side note: this list would join the corresponding awards FLs for Community, Parks and Recreation, and 30 Rock, completing the set for what I would argue was the best night for sitcoms in recent history. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I've got nothing. You certainly have made these into a fine art -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Popsugar has not been reviewed kindly at RSN [9] [10] [11] --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Good to know – I've replaced it with a USA Today source. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support passes my source review --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article seems well-sourced to reliable sources (at least, as compared to other accolade lists ... I have no idea what's going on at, for instance, The Oklahoman). UPSD is flagging Huffpost, but it's not a problem. The tool isn't indicating any other problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image doesn't meet the "originality" requirement to require a copyright check.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support a very good piece of work. I would like consistency with "access-dates" for all online references rather than just some, but that's not a show-stopper. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Understandable – I included access dates on the sources I had to find, but many of the existing sources didn't use them. If you'd like, I can try to find relevant dates, or I can just leave it as is. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Access-dates are just the dates that you last went to the online reference. You don't need to search for them, just check each reference is live and add an access-date for each one you check of the day you check it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [12].

---

List of accolades received by Soul (2020 film)

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have improved the table to FL standards, added secondary sources, and expanded the list itself. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Nothing in the first paragraph is sourced

 Done added WP:VARIETY source. Chompy Ace 13:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the film was released to straight-to-streaming" - this reads a bit oddly to me. Maybe just "the film was released direct to streaming"?

 Done Chompy Ace 14:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I picked up on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Judging from the publication dates, many of the sources only verify nominations, not wins. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• AACTA Awards should be before Academy Awards for alphabetical sorting

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, San Diego comes before San Francisco

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hugo Awards are still pending – the nominations were announced on April 13, but the winners won't be announced until December

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The associated date should also be updated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – all issues are addressed (minus one quick fix noted above), and sourcing seems to be complete now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• " computer-animated fantasy comedy-drama" sea of blue.

 Fixed Removed links. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The lead should have a couple of sentences on the plot of the movie or at least let us know what the movie was about/based on.

 Done Expanded. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "film premiered at the London Film Festival on October 11, 2020.[2] " now ref 2 talks about the fact that this was going to happen in the future (ref is from the month before the film festival) and in such uncertain Covid times, it would be far more preferable to have a source from after the event to confirm that it did, in fact, get shown.

 Done Replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "release" is then used four times in two sentences, repetitive.

 Done Reworded. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• " to the ongoing COVID-19" ongoing is not required.

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• This source says it grossed $116.2m internationally, not $135.4 million per the article. Am I misunderstanding something?

 Done Fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Rotten Tomatoes shows 335 reviews.

 Done Updated. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The wins/noms para of the lead is really really short, there are 90 items to select from and all we have covered here is 3. Can be greatly expanded.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sortable table means that linked items should be linked every time because there's no guarantee which mention will appear first after a sort.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That's enough on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [13].

---

Dua Lipa discography

Nominator(s): LOVI33 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fits the criteria. I began working on this article earlier this year, making sure all claims are backed up and the article as a whole fits the criteria. I got some help from some amazing editors in a peer review as well as a copyedit. I would just like to note that there is a currently a single, "We're Good", that was recently released and is still rising in chart positions. Because of this, you might notice there being citations under a chart positions but I will try my best to remove them as soon as they appear in the archive citations at the top. Also, I currently have another FLC open. I havent seen anywhere that you cannot do that so I hope it is okay. Any comments would be amazing! LOVI33 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from The Ultimate Boss

Article looks amazing! I am going to support. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@LOVI33: - for info, the relevant guidance about having multiple open FLCs is at the top of the page and says "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". But your other FLC has multiple supports and no outstanding issues as far as I can see, so you are good to go with a second one......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "the charity single "Bridge over Troubled Water", dedicated to victims of the Grenfell Tower fire, featured Lipa" - needs a source Sourced in the charity singles subsection under the "Notes" section of the table. "a song which spent eight weeks atop the UK Singles Chart" - source needed for the figure of eight weeks Added in source. "The song spent 25 weeks in the top 10 of UK singles, becoming the sixth-longest top 10 stay in that chart's history" - all of this needs sourcing, also it should probably be "the top 10 of the UK singles chart", not just "the top 10 of UK singles" Reworded and added in source "As part of the Radio 1 Allstars, Lipa participated in the COVID-19 pandemic–relief charity single "Times Like These"" - needs a source Sourced in the charity singles subsection under the "Notes" section of the table. Singles which did not chart need referencing Added in sources. Notes which are not complete sentences (eg "United Kingdom sales figures for Dua Lipa as of February 2021") should not have full stops Removed full stops. I don't quite understand note n. If the remix was combined with the original for chart purposes in the UK, why does it have a different peak position? Basically, the original version of "Levitating" entered UK streaming and download charts upon the release of Future Nostalgia so because of the UK chart rules, the original was credited when the remix entered the chart. We can see that the two versions have different peaks because the remix's chart run ended in September 2020 while the original version was released as a single and had a high re-entry. I hope that makes sense. That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude. I hope everything looks okay now. LOVI33 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts

• Where are the formats of each release sourced to?
• Where are the dates of each release sourced to?
  • From what I've seen in other FL discography articles, the details section of a table is sourced in the article, but they can also be backed up by sources at the top from all countries excluding the UK, US and Canada.
• Needs citations in the lead
  • Everything should be backed up.

--In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments In actu. I hope I have cleared everything up. LOVI33 15:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Mixture of numerals and words in the opening sentence contravenes MOS:NUM, per "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures"
  • Reword so all are spelled out in words
• "propelled Lipa to international fame" this kind of claim needs a reference.
  • Added source
• "and reached the same position" -> "and also topped the UK Singles Chart".
  • Reworded
• "featured Lipa" I would be careful overloading the word "featured" here. I would say something more like "on which Lipa performed". Nobody "featured".
  • Reworded
• Like "Dua Lipa has sold six million copies worldwide".
  • I am unsure what you want me to fix here
    • What I meant was this needs to be referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • The Rambling Man it is sourced in the studio albums section under sales. LOVI33 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I added it explicitly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• "with The Blessed Madonna" -> "with the Blessed Madonna"
  • Reword
• most international markets" really?
  • Reword
• "to earn this achievement" be clearer, i.e. "to have three singles simultaneously in the top ten" or similar.
  • Reword
• "Radio 1 Allstars" probably would link Radio 1.
  • Added link
• The link calls them the "Live Lounge Allstars" by the way.
  • Fix
• You could link Ultratop in the lead.
  • Added link
• I would order infobox same as article sections.
  • {{Infobox artist discography}} automatically orders studio albums, music videos, EPs and singles and in that order. I have adjusted the rest to fit with the article sections.
• What's the difference between an LP and a 12" vinyl?
  • There isn't really. I have fixed it.
• Where is "If Only" referenced?
  • Added source
• Notes F, J and M unreferenced.
  • Added sources
• Her article calls her English yet this discog has an "Albanian" category...
  • Removed

That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments The Rambling Man. I have addressed them all. I hope everything looks okay now. LOVI33 15:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:15, 21 May 2021 (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, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [14].

---

National recreation area

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Next in my series of protected places (after parks, monuments, memorials, and lakeshores and seashores) is recreation areas! I've only been to 5 of the 40 of these (and very near to another couple) but I sure hope to visit more! This was a fascinating bit of history as the concept of a place meant for recreation rather than conservation in a location that has been irreversibly changed by flooding really challenged and transformed the mission of the National Park Service. While they all combine recreation and preservation (with varying degrees of extractive uses), Congress got somewhat haphazard in designating these, and those managed by the Forest Service really differ in how much attention they get! I know the prose is longer than an average FL, but I think it's all interesting stuff that needs to be kept together. Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Good to see this article get some attention and come up to standards of other related ones in the US. Comments based on a quick look: You only have NPS visitation, understandable given how easily accessible it is. The USFS does periodic visitation studies and publishes those results here. You may or may not be able to get estimates for those sites as well, but worth looking into. If so, it would require moving year into the column with visitation like "1,267,900 (2019)" for Amistad, since USFS ones are all the same years. I hadn't seen this site, neat! Unfortunately are at the larger national forest level so there's not much on NRAs. Added for the four that do have reports broken out. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Two of the photos a mostly just of one animal, Land Between the Lakes and Santa Monica Mountains. Would more of landscape photo be more appropriate for a recreation area, like the others? These were actually the only ones that caught my eye! (LBL had no landscapes at commons and SMM was lacking what I liked.) I thought a little diversity is nice since wildlife is part of their recreation and conservation but if there's another you like I'm not attached to these! (A lot of these NRAs generally had poor image selection, so many boring rivers and trees, so if anyone has a better one for Pine Ridge or White Rocks or whatever, please share. Even flickr wasn't of much use.) @Reywas92:, I found many more pictures (including landscapes) in an online CC search, in case any of these are of interest: Land Between the Lakes results and Santa Monica Lakes NRA results. (I ticked the first four license options.) MeegsC (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC) The area column for Whiskeytown is a little difficult to read. Maybe insert some breaks in there. Added It would be good to have alt text for all images. Shoot, forgot those, added. There is at least one instance of inline citation out of order (at top of area column) Fixed An excellent addition to this page would be a section with a list of former NRAs. I know it already exists on the NPS list page, but it would be very pertinent here. I am not sure if there are any others outside NPS. Cuyahoga Valley NP is the only one, mentioned in the history section and I don't think needs its own section. None of the other FLs have this, it's just the main List of areas. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks so much Fredlyfish! Reywas92Talk 20:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Sorry, about that edit here. I made a few minor corrections to the article after a read through, but have a couple more point to resolve: The last sentence of the lead states that the BLM's one NRA is the largest at 1 million acres, but this seems to contradict with later statements that Lake Mead is the largest and Glen Canyon is also larger. Is this just an approximate area for the White Mountains? Either way, rephrase this. Golden Gate states that is the most visited NPS unit, but that isn't true every year and wasn't in 2020. I'd change it to something like "typically among top 5 most visited NPS units" or something similar. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Fredlyfish4 Thanks for the fixes you made, though I'm not sure where the 1100 alpine lakes in Sawtooth is from, my source says 300+. Maybe that includes areas outside the boundaries? Good catch, removed White Mountains from the lead. This is the area used both on the BLM website and in the authorizing legislation and I've not found anything more precise. Fixed Golden Gate, it's been alternating for the lead with Blue Ridge since 2013. Reywas92Talk 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Oh, I just realized that number is for all of Sawtooth National Forest. I'm quite certain the 300 lakes is incorrect. It sounds like a number just for the Sawtooth Range. Actually, they list nearly 400 lakes for the Sawtooth Wilderness alone, which is entirely within the SNRA. So, that wouldn't count the hundreds more lakes in the White Cloud and Boulder ranges, as well as those elsewhere. I do not know exactly what the number would be for the SNRA overall, so perhaps it is best to say "hundreds" of lakes. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead "They have diverse features without universal context" - really not sure what this means (the last three words in particular), can you clarify? This was used in a source to say they have different backgrounds and locations as the development and purpose of NRAs changed over time, but agree it's unclear, reworded. "which had the experience managing visitors in the outdoors" - I think this should be "which had experience of managing visitors in the outdoors" Changed to "experience in" "Of the NPS's 18 sites, 12 are based around large reservoirs emphasizing water recreation, and 5 are near urban areas and include both historic preservation and outdoor recreation" - that only adds up to 17, what's the other one? Delaware Water Gap, which was supposed to have a reservoir but it wasn't built. Didn't want to put too much detail about just that one in the lead (it's in the history) but could reword. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC) That's as much as I have time to look at right now, I'll pick up the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Further comments "due the inherent lack of a natural landscape" - word "to" missing Fixed "so long as they do not disrupt recreation" - think this should be "so long as they did not disrupt recreation" Fixed Two of the first three entries in the table (and a few later on) have sentence fragments at the end of the note which consist solely of a wikilink but with no context - what's that about? All the USFS ones give the national forest it's part of, and I didn't think it's necessary to repeat "It is within the..." every time. I added a note in the text above, or I could put them in parentheses. Personally I think it would be best to stick "Part of the....." in front of each one. It reads oddly (to me at least) when you have a note written in natural language like "Springer Mountain, the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, is the centerpiece of this portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Its forests protect streams of the Chattahoochee River watershed." and then you have the name of the forest stuck on the end not written in the same way...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Done. Reywas92Talk 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Boston Harbor Islands note starts with a number written as a digit which looks odd, especially as the one below starts with a number written as a word Fixed Lake Mead note includes "Nine A portion is also part of...." - either the word Nine is a typo and shouldn't be there, or else "Nine A portion" is some really weird terminology with which I am unfamiliar Completed the sentence I left undone. Ref 2 has a title but nothing else (no publisher, etc) Removed since it just summarizes the table and wasn't necessary in the lead Ref 20 only has a title and also is a link to another WP article, which is not permitted as a ref It does have an external link, but I filled out the rest of the formatting. Thank you! Reywas92Talk 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Apologies, apparently I missed that the "2.2" at the end was linked to an external source, I thought it was all just one bluelink to the WP article on CFR36 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, overall a nice work. There is so much prose that this could in fact be a valid FA candidate as well, but FL works fine. A possible improvement would be a footnote in Visitors (2019), explaining why some cells are empty - there is a line above but one has to look for it. Up to you. --Tone 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "multiple-use management including both conservation and limited utilization of natural resources". I am not sure what "limited utilization of natural resources" means. Small scale mining but not large scale? This needs clarification.
  • Sort of, yeah. This is just the first paragraph and is discussed further later: it's often allowed provided it doesn't interfere with recreational qualities of the park. I'm not going to give details in the first paragraph because there aren't consistent rules for every area with different resources and many past activities have ended. For some examples, Flaming Gorge NRA's creation law said trona mining would be allowed provided it was underground. Mineral claims at Lake Mead and Gauley River have expired, but there was at least a 2009 proposal to drill in Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks NRA; five of the NPS NRAs' enabling legislation specifically allowed for mineral leasing. Glen Canyon NRA is among those that allow grazing.
• "exemplary recreation sites". What does "exemplary" mean here?
  • I think definitions 1, 3, and 4 here would apply, do you have a better word?
• 13,200.11 km2. Rounding to two decimal places is excessive, especially as you only round to one in the sites. I suggest rounding to the nearest whole number.
  • Fixed the template.
• "the National Park Service sought to balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams". I am not sure what this means.
  • Should I add "man-made" before "dams"? Which are by definition not conserving the natural landscape. I feel like this should be clear in context of the sentence with "flooded a scenic valley" where a dam was controversially not balanced with conservation and recreation.
• "Virgin National Park in the region" Which region?
  • Added Arizona and Nevada about the Boulder Canyon Project before that.
• "inherent lack of a natural landscape" What does this mean? Too much farmland?
  • "Lake Mead, to then be the world's largest reservoir"; changed to "a reservoir's inherent lack"
• "However, it contributed to the controversial proposals of Echo Park Dam and Bridge Canyon Dam in existing NPS areas that were canceled after considerable opposition from environmentalists." What contributed?
  • "This interagency partnership" of the previous sentence
• "square them with the broader picture of the agency" "broader aims"?
  • Changed
• "tour Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Light, the country's oldest." Oldest what?
  • Lighthouse, added.
• "The 25 miles (40 km) of the Gauley River downstream of the Summersville Dam and 5 miles (8.0 km)" More inconsistency in rounding.
  • This was the default of the convert template but I've forced rounding.
• "of the Meadow River offer world-class whitewater rafting" "world-class" is touristic and unencyclopedic.
  • How about "premier", "superior", "adventurous", or just "technically difficult"?
• "The urban waterfront area includes for history buffs the penitentiary of Alcatraz Island, the Presidio of San Francisco, the Sutro Baths ruins, and Fort Point. Across the Golden Gate hikers can wander through wooded valleys and among coast redwoods of Muir Woods National Monument" "for history buffs" and "can wander" are unencyclopedic.
  • Modified. I got tired of saying "you can hike" in every item.
• "hikers look down from scenic overlooks on rim trails" More tourist hype.
  • Better than the boring and repetitive "There are scenic viewpoints" I've already used several times. Slightly modified, or suggestions?
• I suggest linking "mesa".
  • Done
• "244,814 acres (990.73 km2 (42,503 acres (172.0 km2) NPS, 202,311 acres (818.72 km2) USFS)" "1,000,000 acres (4,046.9 km2)" More inconsistent rounding. Rounding a million to one decimal place is absurd.
  • Changed template to -1 since it's the only one I couldn't find a precise number for. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• This is an interesting article but some of the text is clumsy and unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: has the nominator addressed your concerns or are some still outstanding? --PresN 16:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are still some comments which read to me as touristic and uncencyclopedic, such as "the rest are other exemplary recreation sites", "offer world-class whitewater rafting", "hikers can wander through wooded valleys", and "hikers can look down from scenic vistas on rim trails". I prefer not to vote either way on this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Exemplary" is not touristic, it means "worthy of imitation" "serving as an illustration or specimen" and "serving as a model or pattern", which ties the lead to the line in the Management section "The Forest Service manages its NRAs as "showcases" of its management standards so that their programs, services, and facilities should be better than and models for its other recreation sites" so yes, they are exemplary and this is not unencyclopedic. "World-class" as a simple adjective is not unencyclopedic, it's a factual term consistent with the source and used in [15][16][17], etc. and even if those are overall touristic, the more neutral [18] and [19] put it in the top in the world, so we need some adjective here. "Premier", "highly rated"? I excised "wander" and "look down" for you. Reywas92^Talk 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "National recreation areas emphasize" use the abbreviation. Y
• "They are established by an act" vs "which was created by a 1936 agreement between" does this mean the first one (early ones) were not created by an act of Congress?
  • Correct, the history covers that the first several were agreements, but they have all since been formalized by Congress
• Second para of lead is unreferenced. If it's covered in the main article, why is the first para referenced?
  • Because the fact at the end of the first para is not repeated in the article.
• Link Hoover Dam for the many millions of non-US readers.
  • Y Sorry it's linked at the start of the history section and missed doing so there too
• "NRAs are managed by the National Park Service" NPS. Y
• "Of the NPS's 18 sites,..." what about the last one?
  • Delaware Water Gap, which was intended to be at a dam but it was never built. I wanted to keep the lead concise but added something for it if that works.
• "They are located in 26 states" The NRAs (the last "they" was the USFS's 22 sites).Y
• "NRAs of the Forest Service" USFS.Y
• "those of the National Park Service have" NPS.Y
• "Service have a total area of 3,714,735" -> "NPS total 3,714,735" Y
• "The Bureau of Land Management's one" BLM. Y
• That sentence is unref. Y
• "to then be the " don't follow this, are you saying it was to be the largest at the time once complete?
  • Yes, it was not built yet, it would be the largest once complete, and it no longer is today; maybe "to be the world's then-largest reservoir"?
• "sought to balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams, and it could provide" doesn't scan for me.
  • "it" is the National Park Service in both uses, maybe "sought to better balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams, and here it could..."?
• "pushed by" promoted? Y
• "while Albright reluctantly agreed to support the USBR with visitor services." unref. Y also Rothman ref.
• "a growing National Park Service" etc etc, if you have the abbreviation, use it. Y
• "His Mission 66 vision.." unref. Y also Rothman ref.
• Link Delaware River. Y
• "The National Park Service, in" overlinked. Y
• "manage the NRAs" the 41 NRAs.
• Hold on, the lead starts saying there are 40....
  • Yes, one is co-managed
• "the United States Army Corps of Engineers primarily" overlinked and use abbr. Y
• "and it is generally permitted in... " unref. Y
• Use full date format, it's not like there isn't enough space in the column. Y
• Image column shouldn't sort. Y
• Table sorts three ways for me.
  • Not sure what you mean by this
    • Click on a heading (e.g. Area) and it should sort two ways, i.e. largest to smallest or smallest to largest. There shouldn't be three ways of sorting a numerical column. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  I clicked area and it sorted smallest to largest, then I clicked again and it was largest to smallest, and on third click it returned to default, which is alphabetized by name. Every column on every table does this and you can see it in the little arrow symbol. Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "provides for excellent scuba diving" guide book tone. Y
• For blank attendance cells, put an en-dash or N/A or something, just don't leave blank.
  • I thought about that, but those imply to me that it's not applicable at all, not just that that particular data point isn't collected, so I marked them with asterisks
• No ref for Ed Jenkins entry. Y
• Second half of Gateway entry unref. Y Oops it's the same one as the first half
• "offer world-class whitewater rafting" guidebook.
  • I already covered this above, I'm not going to just say "offers whitewater rafting" because plenty of rivers do that but this is actually recognized as among the best, but suggestion for a better adjective is welcome
    • Well if multiple reviewers are concerned with tone then I'd suggest it's an issue. You could "quote" it, or describe who claims it to be "world-class" so we have attribution rather than such a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Or evidence that supports the claim, e.g. are there world level events held there regularly? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man Made it a quotation. Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• "agatized" what's that? Y
• "and mountaineering[44]" period before ref. Y
• Why isn't Challis actually "Salmon–Challis" per the article? Y It's two forests administered together
• Ref 53 should be an en-dash not a spaced hyphen. Y Gotta blame Cornell and the ref autogenerator for that. I'm normally the one correcting others on this but I'm not sure when you're supposed to correct the source!
• Consistency with format, see ref 7 has NPS in italics, mostly other not in italics. Y
• Also check ref 67 v ref 68 (for example). Y
• Finally, why isn't the article at "National Recreation Area" per all the names of the NRAs themselves and the template at the bottom of the page and the categories etc?
  • Same as National monument (United States), List of national parks of the United States, etc it's a common noun when used as a general term, a proper noun when used as part of the name of a specific one. I know there is some inconsistency among which of many types of pages (and templates) in different countries have been moved to do this or not, but I do understand the argument to present it as a proper designation too.

Plenty to do here after a quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your useful comments! Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man Anything else? I didn't understand your comment on sorting three ways. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Support my main concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Reviewed version: [20]

Formatting

• Ref 6 and 38 missing retrieval dates Y
  • Though, Template:Cite_book#URL: "Not required for linked documents that do not change." Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• For ref 38, I almost wonder if United States Department of Agriculture should be the publisher and U.S. Forest Service be the author. I think this makes more sense, thoughts?
  • That doesn't, the USFS is an agency within the Dept of Ag. USFS is the publisher, and the author would be its unnamed employees or the agency as well, but of course its typical for agencies to also list their department on their publications.
• Wondering the same as above on ref 51 (except with National Park Service this time)
  • Same. It's not like departments publish things agencies write, the agency can publish something too.

Reliability

• 24 is on the edge, but is passable, I would think
  • National Parks Traveler is a respected non-profit organization.
• 57 is from a blog (so unreliable), unless you can prove the author is a Subject-matter expert. I would suggest finding an alternative source
  • I have no concerns with this source, Tom Kloster is a founder of Trailkeepers of Oregon and the Mount Hood National Park Campaign. Contemporaneous to that he was published in The Oregonian about Mount Hood and he is an expert on the subject.
    • You'll have to excuse my caution, would you mind proving a source or two to confirm that? Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
      • [21][22][23]. I'm happy to cite him that mountain biking occurs there. Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Splendid, thank you. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Suggest adding an OCLC (as a substitute for ISBN— just to "|oclc=") to ref 38 (found here) Y
• suggested OCLC for ref 51 (here) Y Reywas92^Talk 02:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all of this; if I seemed picky with the retrieval dates, it was only because you had them for other documents of the same nature (was just looking for consistency). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:47, 20 May 2021 (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, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1996

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

After my successful nomination of List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1994 and 1995, I am now nominating this list for FLC as part of the 2021 WikiCup. As always, looking forward to addressing any comments. Erick (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments "The first number one of the year was "Más Allá" by Gloria Estefan which" => "The first number one of the year was "Más Allá" by Gloria Estefan, which" "spent two weeks at number-one" - no need for that hyphen "despite it only spending one week at number-one" - same again "which spent four weeks at number-one" - and again "Soraya achieved her only number-ones" - and again "Soraya achieved her only number-ones with "De Repente" and "Amor en Tus Ojos" in her lifetime" - I haven't checked, but has she achieved further number ones since she died? If not, then the last three words are redundant. "longest number-one song by a female act where it spent eight weeks at this position" => "longest number-one song by a female act, spending eight weeks at that position" "Eros Ramazzotti obtained his only chart-topper in 1996 with "La Cosa Más Bella." - closing quote mark on the song title is missing ""Ámame una Vez Más" by Amanda Miguel had the most weeks at number-one by a female artist." - no need for that hyphen Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Got it all done! Thanks as always! Erick (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Done. Erick (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support passes my source review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "(BDS)": We're generally only defining acronyms if they're re-used.
• ""Ámame una Vez Más" by Amanda Miguel was the longest number one song by a female act where it spent eight weeks at this position.": There are lots of options here, but I don't think "where it spent ..." has sufficient support; something else would probably be better. "the longest number one song, at eight weeks, by a female act" works.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked the sorting: some reviewers will have a problem with "Amor en ..." coming before "Amor", but I think it's fine. The sorting isn't right on the artists column; Amanda Miguel shouldn't be sorted under A. Otherwise, the table is fine. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). Ref 12 would benefit from a retrieval date; otherwise, all relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations, such as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1, every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for your support! I took your suggestions and amended the list with it! Erick (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... TRM didn't like "the longest number one song", and he has a point, readers might think the song had a longer run time. I'm not sure what's best there. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support made a couple of changes which will need copyediting, but do check the refs that haven't archived, I tried to load [17] and no joy... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 03:47, 20 May 2021 (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, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [25].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Rooney Mara

Nominator(s): Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fits the criteria. I have used other accolades lists as references for this article and I have made sure this uses reliable sources. I look forward to the comments. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• "She received several awards and nominations for her performance, including the Academy Award for Best Actress...." - I would clarify which of the named awards she actually won, because I read this and at first thought "funny, I don't remember her winning an Oscar?"
• "in the biographical drama Mary Magdalene (2018),[3] garnered" - don't think that comma there is needed
• For ensemble cast awards, you need to add a footnote indicating with who she shared the award, or at the very least put "shared with the cast" or similar, because currently it looks like she was the sole recipient
• "(tied with Saoirse Ronan for Hanna)" - why "tied" rather than "shared" as you do with all other joint wins?
• Link Daniel Craig both times he is mentioned, given that the table is sortable
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comment. I fixed all the issues and have edited the article. About number four, I used "tied" for those awards she won or nominated with someone for different films (like your example), and "shared" for similar ones. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Remove letters that are unused from TOC by specifying an empty parameter in the template (i.e. |j= to remove J). Swap Notes and References in TOC to match article order. Move all "Tied with..." notes to the Result column as footnotes, and move the current footnote a to the Category column. This makes the distinction between shared and tied nominations clear, and I personally think it makes more sense since shared nominations are part of a specific category's rules while ties are part of the results. Also, for footnote a: I know the SAG Awards name every nominee for the ensemble awards, but many other awards presented to the best ensemble do not name specific actors and, in this case, were simply given to "The Social Network". If you're going to include the award for Mara, make sure the award specifically cites Mara as part of the nomination. "Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards" does not follow alphabetical order. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Done. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) It looks like you replaced the TOC with your own list of links without using a TOC template, which presents two issues: there are now two TOCs (the one you made and the auto-generated TOC), and the formatting won't remain consistent (i.e. your custom TOC now appears on mobile, which isn't normally the case). The TOC template you were using originally should work; just add the blank parameters like I mentioned. If you need more help with this, let me know. Also, while this isn't a source review, there are still issues with awards tagged with the original footnote a (now footnote d). For instance, the WAFCA Award for Best Ensemble lists only the nominated films with no mention of any actors. Placing Mara in the ensemble simply because she was in the movie constitutes OR; not every actor in a film is counted towards ensemble awards, and many of these awards never specify actors in the first place. The source must specifically name her for the nomination/win to be included; being listed as a member of the ensemble at IMDb is not enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I fixed all the issues but in some pages (like List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain) SDFCS and WAFCA Award for Best Ensemble are added, so it's question for me to delete these awards or not. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC) I'm still not comfortable listing those awards (and I disagree with the decision to include them on Chastain's list). If Mara isn't specifically listed, I don't think we should assume she was being singled out for recognition. (To put it another way: there are 99 credited actors in the film per IMDb; if we assume Mara was a nominee simply because she acted in the film, why shouldn't we assume all 98 remaining members on the list are also nominees?) Also, the SAG Awards didn't include Mara in their nomination, so I'm even more adverse to including Mara in other ensemble awards. The only thing that might change my mind is if you can find a "For Your Consideration" ad for the film that includes Mara as part of the suggested ensemble, and even then I'd lean toward excluding the awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: I deleted these awards from the list. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Cool. I wasn't trying to be super nitpicky; I just think this is an important precedent to establish and I wanted to make my reasoning clear. Overall, it's a strong list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The opening sentence is jarringly short and the lead in general is a little brief, perhaps describe her first role, when it was etc before going on to say when she won her first nom/award.
• She seems to have received attention for The Social Network so that could go in the lead too.
• "and went on to..." one run-on too many for me and not sure this even works grammatically but the sentence is so long it's hard to follow.
• For balance, and also for those who aren't aware of it, the Golden Raspberry nom should be explained as well.
• I spot-checked ref 6 and couldn't see any sign of the nominations which the list suggests are referenced there.
• Also, because I know nothing about it, I checked the Silver Medallion from Telluride, and the reference doesn't seem to mention Silver or medallion at all.
• Ref 19 just seems to redirect to a homepage.
• I haven't really looked at the other refs, but 0/3 doesn't appear great.
• Link publishers/works in references consistently, e.g. what's the approach? First time only? Every time?

That's all for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi! All done. I linked publishers/works in references only for the first time. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Avoid the SHOUTING in the ref and I think we're nearly there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: "SHOUTING in the ref"? Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

THE CAPITAL LETTERS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I think you meant ref 45, I fixed that. Lisbeth Sjöberg (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:47, 20 May 2021 (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, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [26].

---

List of accolades received by Devdas (2002 Hindi film)

Nominator(s): Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the list of accolades received by 2002 Hindi film Devdas. The film got so many attentions from both Indian and foreign journalists, and it was Indian submission for the Oscar. I nominated it because I believe this list is comprehensive enough. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Lead photo caption needs a full stop Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) There should be an infobox like List of awards and nominations received by Bob's Burgers Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) "while Kirron Kher, Smita Jaykar and Vijayendra Ghatge playing...." - "while playing" doesn't work grammatically. It should be either "with....playing" or "while....played" Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) "a Bachelor of Law student who later being an alcoholic after his family rejected" => "a Bachelor of Law student who later becomes an alcoholic after his family rejects" Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) "who also wrote the dialogues" => "who also wrote the dialogue" Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) In the receipient(s) column, anything that starts with a " should sort based on the first actual word, so "Dola Re Dola" should sort under D, not at the top Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Any reason why the result column is not sortable, as is the norm? Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Note b is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop. Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): Tthe table is missing a caption.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`

--PresN 14:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Yash

• Devdas is a 2002 Hindi-language --> Devdas is a 2002 Indian Hindi-language
• "and Vijayendra Ghatge played supporting roles." 'Played' supporting role or 'play' supporting roles? The entire article is in present except for this bit.
• Write full names in the alt text

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

;Comments Bharat Shah can be wikilinked in lead Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Use {{sronly}} for the table caption, since it is similar to the section heading and therefore unnecessary to display. Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Aishwarya Rai Bachchan should sort by "Rai Bachchan" in the table Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) "15–17 May 2003" does not sort correctly in the date column (I think the dash prevents Wikipedia from recognizing it as a date to sort correctly) Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) No need to use small text to state "(for ...)" in nominee column (see MOS:SMALL) Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Should the Bollywood Music Award for "Best Songs" be for "Best Song" instead? Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Sources 11, 22, and 33 seem unnecessary; there is no clear way to access the primary sources for verifiability. I would suggest removing these sources, especially since other sources seem to exist. Source 33 is a bit different, since it is the only source for those awards. You'll need a different source here so the awards can be verified; otherwise, the awards should probably be removed. Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Source 26 is titled "'Devdas' wins eight awards", yet only five wins are shown – why? I don't know... Every articles on Google say eight, but they only show five, I have no idea to solve this problem. Sorry. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Hmm... I guess it's okay for now, but I'd encourage you to keep digging and look for it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Support – all issues resolved! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Three of the awards bodies have no Wikipedia articles, which would imply they are not notable. Why, then, should we be listing their awards here?

Removed. But, in the future, I will re-added the awards when I have created Wikipedia articles for them. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• " ₹500 million" link INR.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the 4th iteration of" fourth.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "the film garnered eighteen nominations," infobox says 17 noms.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Saroj Khan (for "Dola Re Dola")" why is the text smaller here?

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 14 should link The Guardian following your linking approach to do so first time each time.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why Ref 16 suddenly has a publisher?

It's agency actually...

• Ref 24 has stylistically unmatched apostrophes.

Done --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 32 also suddenly adds a publisher.

This too...

That's it for a quick review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:47, 20 May 2021 (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, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [27].

---

American Football discography

Nominator(s): Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL? and MewithoutYou discography has two supports. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• "Because all three studio albums and one extended play is eponymous" => "Because all three studio albums and one extended play are eponymous" (subject is plural)
• Refs at the end of that sentence are not in correct numerical order
• Doesn't "re-release" have a hyphen?
• Stereogum is spelt incorrectly in refs 7 and 17
• Think that's it from me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: fixed! --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Have made some light copyedits, and run through the sources for both quality and comprehensiveness of the list itself. All in order, with only quibbles being that would link each of the publishers of the refs (Pitchfork, Stereogum etc) at first instance, while BrooklynVegan seems to be essentially a blog (personally don't see them as math rock. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "two extended plays" put (EPs) after, you use the abbreviation in the infobox.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign" interestingly this appeared in a list I reviewed earlier, without the en-dash but with a hyphen. The target article uses a hyphen. Which is correct, and whichever it is, all articles related should be aligned.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "self-titled extended play" EP.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "recruited Nate Kinsella" who is...? And is he related to Mike?
  • expanded --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would put the infobox in the same order as the article.
  • I can't change the order --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• "List music videos that American Football has released" caption could/should probably include the fact that directors are listed too.
  • Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• If NPR can be linked, so can Vice, Rolling Stone etc.
  • Fixed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on this one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    @The Rambling Man: at seem to be in the official name, but it is commonly dropped --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    While we're here then, we should set about fixing the other issues! Happy to support this FLC now though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:47, 20 May 2021 (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, 3 May 2021 (UTC) [28].

---

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2012

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone - with 66 number-one country songs now at FL, here's what I hope will be #67, covering the year 2012. This was a controversial year with regard to the country charts, as Billboard introduced a new methodology for the long-running Hot Country Songs chart which was seen as unduly favouring those acts whose songs are played on pop radio stations as well as those with a country format. When we get to 2013 we will see this leading to the slightly bizarre situation of the number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart being one that wasn't actually being played on country radio at all, but for now here's the 2012 list. As ever, I welcome your comments and they will be acting upon swiftly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Once again, a really solid list. Just a few comments:

• The first sentence feels a bit like a teaser to me. I would name the charts in the first sentence or two before discussing the changes in depth. I know it's a little awkward since Country Airplay wasn't in place for the entire year. Maybe it could use something like this (inspired by the 1958 list, which also saw a change in the lists used):

At the start of 2012, Billboard magazine published the Hot Country Songs chart based on weekly airplay data from country music radio stations compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems. With effect from the issue dated October 20, 2012, however, the magazine...

Feel free to tinker with this; I just think the first sentence is too clickbaity right now.

• "Nielsen" is misspelled as "Neilsen" in the lead.
• Normally, when sorting words alphabetically, the end of a word is given priority over any letter – for example, "You" should precede "You Don't Know Her Like I Do" and "You Gonna Fly". (This is also an issue with "Over"/"Over You".)
• Lee Brice is currently sorted by first name, not last.
• Eli Young Band should sort by "Eli" (the name is a combination of two members' last names, not a single member's full name).

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: - many thanks for your comments - all addressed now! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support – excellent as always! RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• I linked some "Billboard"s that didn't have it, otherwise good

Reliability

• Looks good here

Verifiability

• checked 38, 20, 64, 1, all good

Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

More reviews

Comments from Dank

• Question: when a previous reviewer has created a subheading, do you want me to do nothing, create my own subheading, or remove theirs?
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "breaking the record for the longest unbroken": There's sort of an unwritten rule to avoid using a word in two different senses in the same sentence, and this sort of breaks the rule. "taking the record for the longest unbroken" is one option. "one of a number of ... number ones" also sort of breaks the rule.
• Personal preference: I think the first sentence of the third paragraph tries to do too much. I also think it's in the wrong place; the second sentence looks like the ideal topic sentence for that paragraph to me.
• I hate hyphens, but I should probably mention that the hyphenation is probably inconsistent in "number-one country song" vs. "number one position".
• FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, the prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I sampled the links in the table; I see the previous reviewer checked the sorting.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine. The second image in the first section lacks alt="" (but I generally don't take a position on when actual text is needed and what it should be ... not my call.)
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - thanks for your support, I have made a couple of minor tweaks re: the points you raised -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "At the start of 2012, Billboard magazine published..." this makes it sound like it never happened before. Oh it was. Maybe "began publishing"?
• We have an article at Crossover music.
• "and spins on other" is this encyclopedic? Even "rotations" might be too informal...
• "the youngest solo male artist" would you let us in on how old he was?
• "best-selling country digital single of all time" the reference is five years old, should this be "as of"ed...?
• "List of number-one country albums of 2012 (U.S.)" this has been moved.
• NYT references need a subscription to read, so refs should be tagged accordingly.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - all done, hopefully to your satisfaction -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

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