Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations[edit]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Limited or Anthology Series[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I do plan on doing this with all the award categories. (: This award recognizes excellence in the depiction of queer people in limited / anthology series. It's probably one of the most complex awards by GLAAD that I've worked on, having gone through multiple changes and reorganizations throughout the decades. For more details, just go to the page itself. Most recently given to HBO's The White Lotus, if anyone has seen it. "These gay lists... they're trying to murder me." --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Welcome back. A quick comment:
  • Check the order of your cites for 1990, 2003 and 2008 ... I can't tell if the order is reversed because you want it that way, but I'm guessing that in this particular ref format, it shouldn't be reversed. (If you separate the rows, then, sure.) Also, there's something weird going on with the second 2009 ref. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. :D Regarding the numbering, since I leave the lede last, I often end up reusing sources from the list at the top of the page, causing them to gain a new, and lower, number. I am curious, is that a FL criterion? Having the references in numerical order? As for the 2009 ref, yeah, my bad. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • AFAIK, yes, it's required at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Dank: All right. Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Dank I believe Panagiotis was trying to list the citations in order (nominees first and then the winner). I have had 3 FLCs pass even though they have the wrong order of citation numbers. Is this requirement actually enforced? -- EN-Jungwon 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon[edit]

  • Add table key for the double dagger and green background.
  • Done.
  • The 1993 entry: The source doesn't directly say that "Doing Time on Maple Drive" won the award, I feel like I may be misinterpreting the source so can you please clarify this for me? Also, the movie's Wikipedia article has no mention of this award and a quick Google search didn't reveal much. The second reference (which seems to list all the winners) doesn't list any winners for that year. It is also not listed in the page template ({{GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Movie or Limited Series}}).
  • Although the Variety source doesn't state this explicitly, the "Past Winners" source does show how Doing Time on Maple Drive won in the TV Movie category. The fact that the Wikipedia article and template don't show this isn't really relevant. Wouldn't be the first time that omissions would exist on GLAAD-related pages. Here is another source on the TV film: https://www.tvweek.com/in-depth/2005/04/glaad-awards-15-years-of-recog/. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 22 doesn't mention the network of the series.
  • "The Fear Street Trilogy" should sort under "Fear".
  • Done.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. If you have time would you mind reviewing the FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017) -- EN-Jungwon 05:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • The second paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. You say that The Women of Brewster Place won in 1990 but don't specify what award it won. Then you say "In 1994, Fox's Doing Time on Maple Drive became the first television film to be recognized by GLAAD." - was this the same award? Presumably it was, because apparently after that win, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories". How do these different categories tie in with the winners in the table, where there never seems to be more than one winner in any given year.....?
    • The Women of Brewster Place likely won in the "Miniseries" category. Unfortunately, the nominees list by GLAAD doesn't explicitly state each category's name for their first ceremony, but given that it's a miniseries and a few years later, Tales of the City won in the TV Mini-series category (as indicated by the "Past Winners" source), it can be inferred that WoBP won in that category. Doing Time on Maple Drive then was the first TV movie (rather than miniseries) to be recognized, in the TV Movie category; unsurprisingly. As indicated by GLAAD's Letterboxd list, both of these separate categories are treated as one, as they're both precursors of the unified Television Movie/TV Movie and Mini-series category. Which was then expanded to include anthology series, then separated... God, the whole thing is giving me brain damage. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • So, to confirm, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories" isn't meant to indicate that these different categories existed together in any one year.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yeah, based on the "Past Winners" source, at no point up until 1999 did GLAAD recognize both a miniseries and TV movie in the same year. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "By 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards," => "In 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards,"
    • I get it, but that's part of the problem with this award. It's whole history is a mess, and there isn't much info from GLAAD. I do know that by this year, GLAAD was recognizing both TV movies and miniseries within a single category, but I'm not sure if this is when the process started. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If all that is known is that the change happened "by" 2003, then "during the 14th awards" isn't appropriate. "By 2003 and the 14th awards" would probably work..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "American Horror Story winning for its second season" => "American Horror Story won for its second season"
    • Done.
  • Note b does not need a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Done.
    • Chris, do you happen to know if references are supposed to be in numerical order within one cell at FLC? See above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I always thought they were, but when someone pushed back on that at a previous FAC/FLC (I forget the exact details) I couldn't actually find anywhere that stated it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is it, we're almost done with this Featured List series for flowering plant families. It's been a long, productive journey, and here we are. The rosids are generally divided into the fabids (named for the fava bean family) and malvids, and the nitrogen-fixing clade is a large clade (a group of related species) within the fabids. There's a lot here that will be familiar to almost everyone ... roses, apples, cucumbers, legumes, Cannabis. Comments are welcome. Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. Malpighiales is handled in a separate table, with less data and no images, because some readers have problems with images not loading when the tables are longer than these, or when there are too many images. A hatnote directs readers to a gallery of images for almost all the families at Malpighiales. (Or, I could change the name of the list to "List of fabid families (except for Malpighiales)" or "List of non-Malpighiales fabid families", if you like.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved comments from PresN and Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the list explains why you have the Malpighiales families separate here, and in a different format? Also, the lead says there's eight orders but lists seven; the eighth, is of course, Malpighiales. --PresN 15:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added, thanks. The answer was on the list's talk page; I'll add it above. I don't want to go into too much detail on the talk page (and none in article-space) because the situation is slightly embarrassing; we're dealing with a mediawiki bug here that, for some reason, hasn't been fixed in a very long time. (But I don't have a strong feeling about this; you're welcome to disagree.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Cutting off just Malpighiales into its own list seems awkward namewise; taxonomically it's slit between Celastrales/Oxalidales/Malpighiales and the other 5. Size-wise, that's 30 rows for the Nitrogen-fixing group, 2 for Celastrales, 9 for Oxalidales, and 36 for Malpighiales (83 total). So, a split of 30 and 47. Do you know about where the line is for the issue? Is 47 too long?
Well, let's take this one step at a time. I can tell you that 59 is too many families, so I'll stop working on the 59-family malvids for now, because there's no similar solution available (other than the one I'm proposing here, breaking off one order, Brassicales). I have no objection to renaming this list to "List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families"; all I have to do is throw out Zygophyllales, Celastrales, Oxalidales and Malpighiales. If anyone objects to that approach, say something soon. I'm not personally interested in doing a Celastrales/Oxalidales/Malpighiales list; that clade has a silly (and possibly out-of-fashion) name, it's a relatively recent addition to the APG series, and I don't know what sources I would use for the clade as a whole. (Sources for Malpighiales alone are better.) But someone else might be interested in doing it, which would be fine. Striking, and pondering. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say, I've never heard of this issue- List of carnivorans, for example, has 236 images and it never came up. Can you link the issue report? --PresN 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never looked for the issue report. I've been told by several users over the years (including by User:ChrisTheDude) that random images stopped loading on my long plant lists roughly when we had 900 or 1000 rows, and on my other lists at roughly the 100-image point. I've seen this issue just a few times myself, but I can't reproduce it reliably, I think it depends on the machine and the browser. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally, I like to wait a little longer for feedback before acting on a request that would change the title and the contents, but there's a risk here that reviewers will waste time reviewing stuff that then gets deleted. Happy to follow through on your advice, PresN, and I'll make the changes. I'll mark this resolved ... feel free to revert if you disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Placeholder

  • Think your not placing enough emphasis on Cannabis' societal importance (vs simple use as material for fabric and rope) in the lead. That it has served spiritual/ceremonial/recreational purposes for at least the last 2400 years is certainly lead worthy. The note in the list entry however is very well done.
    • Done.
  • Overall, I'd prefer a more substantial lead.
    • I've expanded both paragraphs in the lead, and as a bonus, I added a link for "temperate" so that we don't have to link it in every row. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Excellent addition to the series. More later. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Ceoil: Delighted with your edits ... they bring up really interesting issues, as always (although, since this is the last in the series for a while, it's too late in the day to go through all the previous lists changing every "scattered", I think). If you'd hold off editing for a few minutes, I'm going to follow PresN's advice and toss out 4 of the orders. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
np Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done for now. Carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I see you have addressed the above and those implied via my edit summaries. I'm happy here; as usual crisp and spare writing, top notch sourcing, beautiful illustrations, and clearly explained annotations. What more could be asked for. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Very kind. Regarding your question about whether this is the end ... I'm going to give the COM clade a shot. I'm leaving one column in the malvids blank to encourage others to participate. Elizabeth is working on the campanulids. And that will finish up the flowering plant families. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of National Geographic cover stories (1959 and 1960s)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for a featured list because I feel that National Geographic is an important culturally significant magazine that deserves to have its cover stories recognized. Most reference sources require a subscription to National Geographic, however if clicked on, you will be taken to the cover photo of that issue (Very slow website), you just won't be able to go into the magazine. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 09:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment
More comments
  • I would add an opening sentence saying something like "National Geographic magazine is noted for its cover photography" (but probably better worded) sourced to something like this. This will help to make clear that this is a notable topic in its own right.
  • "The cover story titled, "New...." - no need for that comma
  • I have to say I don't think it looks right to have the titles of stories/articles both in quote marks and italicised. I don't know if the MOS says anything about this but I personally would go for just the quote marks.
  • "by President Eisenhower" - give his full name, people outside the US will not necessarily know it
  • "Cover stories published saw articles" => "Cover stories included articles"
  • No need to link Eisenhower a second time, especially if you add his full name in para 1
  • "Human-interest stories such" - not the start of a new sentence so no need for capital letter
  • "And geographical locations" - same again
  • That sentence is unbelievably long, taking up the entire second paragraph - can you break it up at all?
  • "wrote the cover story titled, "First Explorers on the Moon", writing in detail, their account" - none of those commas are needed
  • "Photos could also be a painting or a drawing" - a photo can't be a drawing. If not all the images are photos, I suggest changing the column header to "image"
  • Notes c, d and f do not need full stops
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, nominating Auba's international goal tally as I think i've covered just about every aspect required for FL status, it has a detailed stats section, good goal coverage for each match with match reports, and a solid lead detailing the most significant events of his international career.

Aubameyang represented Gabon for 13 years, and despite being born in France he is Gabon's all-time top scorer, thus being being worthy of a seperate list article from his bio. Big fan of his as he was a true servant at Arsenal, solid player. Idiosincrático (talk)

Comments
  • Lead image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • Image caption does not really need that ref as it is referenced in the prose
  • Burkina and Gabon nicknames should be in quote marks, not italics
  • "His 13-year stop-start stint with The Panthers was mottled with controversy, tensions and setbacks, he was often" - Probably start a new sentence with "He was"
  • "The spurn came" - spurn isn't a noun. Could probably just say "this came"
  • Add "and" before "the decision of Aubameyang" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In early May 2007, a violent tornado outbreak struck the Great Plains of the United States. The first day of this outbreak has become notorious with an EF5 tornado essentially wiping the community of Greensburg, Kansas, off the map. This list covers all the tornadoes that touched down throughout this three-day outbreak. It follows the structure set by the two other tornado FLs and should be up to par with MOS requirements for such a large table. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "In early-May 2007" - no reason for hyphen there
  • Daily statistics table looks a little odd with the totals centre-aligned but the columns above right-aligned
  • "A brief tornado lofted" - should that be "lifted?
    • Lofted and lifted work as synonyms but the latter is often used when describing tornado dissipation. In this case it's about the irrigation pivot being thrown. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Storm chasers observed observed" - repeated word
  • "This first one caused some damage to trees" => "The first one caused some damage to trees"
  • "A man was killed in this home" => "A man was killed in his home"
  • "where the recreation center and marina heavily impacted" => "where the recreation center and marina were heavily impacted"
  • Lots of refs have single square brackets around the title - are those meant to be there?
    • Yes, those are included because the refs don't have actual titles and those are stand-ins. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Supporting on prose. Very nice work. I skimmed the prose and made minor edits. Nothing big jumped out at me. Earlier in my wiki-career, I used to do a lot of prose supports ... I usually almost always do complete reviews at FLC, but there was a lot to read here. If I get motivated, I might finish up later. I hope you'll consider reviewing (or even just prose-reviewing) List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Note that my last edit wasn't strictly "prose" ... I couldn't find that phrase in the two listed sources. That's not a problem ... I just removed the phrase, and the paragraph works fine without it (prose-wise), but you can re-insert if you want to source it (or if my search failed for some odd reason). - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Oops ... forgot my standard disclaimer "feel free to revert or discuss". That always applies. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Dank: I appreciate the review! The bit you removed isn't of much importance for the purposes of this list so it's all good. I'll take a look at the early-diverging flowering plants in the next day or two. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Continuing.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I covered prose above. I typically don't check sorting on number or date columns, but I did check the state column. I sampled the links in the main table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of ICC Men's T20 World Cup five-wicket hauls[edit]

Nominator(s): RoboCric (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this article deserves to be a featured list. Made the list in accordance with the FL criteria. So, I am glad to present it for review and looking forward to your feedback. RoboCric (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • " In a T20I, each team plays single innings," => " In a T20I, each team plays a single innings,"
  • "The first five-wicket haul in an ICC Men's T20 World Cup match as well as any T20I match was" => "The first five-wicket haul in an ICC Men's T20 World Cup match, as well as in any T20I match, was"
  • "who picked up 6 wickets for 8 runs recording the best bowling figures in the T20 World Cup till date" => "who picked up 6 wickets for 8 runs, recording the best bowling figures in the T20 World Cup to date" ("till date" is not an expression in English)
  • "He set the remarkable record" - calling it remarkable is not WP:NPOV
  • "Rangana Herath's fifer against New Zealand on 31 March 2014, is" - no reason for that comma to be there
  • "Mujeeb Ur Rahman of Afghanistan is the first player" => "Mujeeb Ur Rahman of Afghanistan was the first player"
  • "on T20 World Cup debut" => "on his T20 World Cup debut"
  • Image caption: "Mujeeb Ur Rahman is the first player to pick up a five-wicket haul on ICC Men's T20 World Cup debut" => "Mujeeb Ur Rahman was the first player to pick up a five-wicket haul on his ICC Men's T20 World Cup debut." (note the full stop at the end) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all the issues you raised. Waiting for your further review or opinion. RoboCric (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Turning Red[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turning Red is a Pixar film with multiple nominations for Best Animated Film from multiple award organizations, although it won several, especially that from "Film Critics". Not that bad, but still a solid form for Pixar. This list has expanded to above 50,000 bytes, or the List of accolades received by Despicable Me 2-esque look. Chompy Ace 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Quick question: Domee Shi is she/her on that page, so why does the caption say "Domee Shi received several awards and nominations for his direction"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dank, done. Chompy Ace 05:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I fixed a MOS:COMMA issue.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I'll defer on prose issues. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done.
  • I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • "However, the film was shifted to its direct-to-streaming release on Disney+ due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while Turning Red being released in theaters in countries without the streaming service" => "However, the film was shifted to a direct-to-streaming release on Disney+ due to the COVID-19 pandemic, although it was still released in theaters in countries without the streaming service"
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 09:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Top Selling Rhythm & Blues Singles number ones of 1965[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My most recent FLC was the list of US number one R&B singles of 1963, so naturally here I am next with the equivalent list for 1965. Huh? Don't worry about it, nobody who didn't work for Billboard c.60 years ago understands it either, but there you go. Anyway, feast your eyes on the host of all-time classic songs that topped the chart in this particular year and please feel free to offer your feedback on the list..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Very minor (somewhat nitpick-y) suggestion, use {{nowrap|million-selling}}, along with other hyphenated words to avoid line breaks, for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices.
  • released on the Detroit-based label -- should it be released under the Detroit-based label?

Nothing to quibble. Another great read and work as usual. --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done. I am British and in this country we say that a record was released "on" a label. But maybe "under" is the norm in the states.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh, there's something new to learn everyday :) It could be a case of me reading music articles written in American English and its prevalent usage. If this is written in British English then that is acceptable. Either way, nothing from stopping me to support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47 / Source review[edit]

  • For File:The Temptations 1968.JPG, would there be a way to change the source link to go to the page with the image? Right now, when I click on the link, it goes to page 12 and not page 7.
  • The source links for File:Marvin Gaye 1966 (cropped).jpg do not work for me, and besides, I think it is always better to use something other than eBay for this sort of thing. I have the same comment for File:The Supremes 1966.JPG.
  • Should black be capitalized in these two instances: (mainstream success to black music) and (one of the most influential black musicians of all time)? I am genuinely unsure so that is why I asked.
  • For Citation 1, I would italicize Billboard as it is referencing the magazine, and items like that should be represented accurately even in citation titles.
  • I need a subscription to see Citation 3 so I would mark that on the source. I have the same comment for the Billboard chart sources as I can only see the top spot (which is fine in this context), but to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well.
  • Richie Unterberger should be linked in Citation 8. Same for David Browne in Citation 3
  • For Citation 10, I think the title should just be (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs 1965) as that is what appears on the top of the archived version of the article. I took out the stray semi-colon after R&B as it seems like a typo, but I would not be opposed to keeping it for complete accuracy. The current citation title does not really match with the article.
  • While this is not required for a FLC, I would strongly encourage you to archive citations to avoid any potential headache with potential link rot and death in the future.

I hope this review is helpful! Since I have brought up points regarding the sources, I will do a full source review (i.e. spot-checks, etc.) once the above comments have been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review. All done bar "to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well - not sure how to indicate that.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that instance, I would recommend marking the citation as requiring a subscription, as done for Citation 3. It seems like there is a limit on how many free articles Billboard allows users to see. I was able to look through a few of these lists without issue and then the subscription pop-up appeared. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do other citations on en.wikipedia to Billboard mark it as "subscription required"? I don't remember seeing these but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) I did some searching because it seems like an interesting question. I haven't seen a single case of "subscription required" (for charts like these) ... and that includes two FAs, for BTS and Meghan Trainor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of that, the site does require a subscription, and I cannot access the entire list without a subscription. When I click on the source, all I have access to is the number one spot, and while that is appropriate for this list, the source is still not fully accessible to individuals without a subscription. I know that there are some instance where subscription websites like Billboard seemingly require subscriptions for only certain parts. For instance, I can click on the Billboard articles in the Meghan Trainor article without needing a subscription to view the full thing. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit scared about how fast some rules are changing on Wikipedia, and what that may do to the cohesion of the community. Some of the changes, I'm sure, are just because things are changing in the world very fast, maybe too fast to keep up. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not an instance of the rules changing on Wikipedia. As I have said above, for one of the examples you mentioned, the Billboard citations are not hidden behind a paywall or a subscription like in this case. This is less a change in Wikipedia rules and policies as the subscription template is not new, but more so a reflection of how more websites are adopting a subscription model for their content. Billboard has a rather clear FAQ page saying that this "Billboard Pro" subscription is for weekly charts so it makes sense that these charts would fall underneath that. While I do understand your concerns, I do not see how this is an example of this. In my opinion, this is straight-forward. A citation requires a subscription to access a full page so it should be marked as such. Again, this subscription template is not new. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoba47: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response. Apologies if I was being annoying or too forceful with this. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. This also passes my source review. I did a spot check and everything passes. The sources now all have appropriate structures. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoba47, Dank, and ChrisTheDude: Following up on this - Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required gives a more precise answer on the question of source restrictions: if you can access a site for a few pages but then need to register to see the rest, then you can use "|access=limited". Not sure when that got added as an option, but it fits this case. Wiki-wide use of the access parameter is a bit spotty, and I don't think not using it or using "subscription" instead of "limited" is an opposable offense by any means, but in terms of being perfectly accurate, there you are. If there's a bot that does these (I know there's at least one that runs around adding "|access=free" to free journals) then it would be best for a wiki-wide run of setting billboard to limited rather than getting ChrisTheDude to go back and edit a hundred+ lists. --PresN 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Aoba and I discussed this on their talk page, and we agreed that asking for edits to previous lists would be too much. "access=limited" sounds great to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @PresN: Apologies for my late response. I am currently taking a wikibreak. I raised this point during my review because the citations should accurately represent the sources. If a subscription is needed, then it should be marked as such. I agree that the "limited" version should have been the one I suggested, but I had honestly forgotten about it. In my review, I did not bring up how this would affect other Wikipedia articles or lists, and I did not request that anyone go back into their FAs or FLs. That is a completely different conversation. I noticed that I could not access the full source, and I do not see any issue with bringing it up as part of a source review as that is the point of doing one. I did not oppose at anytime in my source review. I simply waited until the sources were accurately represented in the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Apologies for any mistakes on my part. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There is no need to apologize as I would not consider it a mistake. It is good to have these types of discussions, but I just do not see why pointing this out when a list is up for review would be an issue. That being said, this is not really the appropriate venue for that and I do not want to take away from the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I never said it was an issue; I tried to make that clear, but maybe I didn't. I said that if we're living in a world where Billboard and other companies are changing the rules frequently, in a way that requires literally millions of references to be changed (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), and if we're expecting writers to do all this manually and on demand, then we might be creating a John Henry (folklore) problem. (John Henry won the contest against the machines, but killed himself from overwork in the process.) If we're living in that world ... and increasingly, we are ... then we need to give more thought to using bots to fix these problems. That was what I was talking about. Sorry if I was confusing; I have no problem with anything you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (I'm not talking about the burden on individual editors here, I'm talking about the total burden faced by the editing community as a whole.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I got your point, but it is not relevant to my source review or this FLC. I raised a point about the citations could more accurately represented the sources to an editor who nominated a list at the FLC process where it is expected for reviewers to provide these types of suggestions. Again, I never even remotely said or suggested editors changed this across Wikipedia or in their past work. I do not know why that even became a topic of discussion, particularly after I had already completed my source review.
      All I did was point out areas of improvements in the citations, which seems standard for a source reviewer. Apparently, I did not do it correctly. This honestly just feels like attacking or belittling my source review, and to be blunt, it does put me off from doing any more in the future. I am going back to my WikiBreak so I said above, I think it is best to just end the discussion here as the focus should be on the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I added a comma; other than that, all good. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NØ[edit]

  • "The song was one of a number of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" - "The song was among numerous of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" or something simpler might work as well.
  • "Marvin Gaye, the Supremes and the Four Tops also reached the peak position in 1965" - to make it clear this is about #1 peak positions only, this could maybe be "reached the summit" or "reached the top of the chart"
Just two nitpicks from me. Great list and the image picks complement it well. If you have some time, I'd greatly appreciate your input on my new FAC. Hope everything's going well!--NØ 16:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: - second one done, first one not done because "numerous of" is not a grammatically valid expression -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe try "many of" or "several/numerous chart-toppers of the year".--NØ 21:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Joan Allen[edit]

Nominator(s): Jovian Eclipse 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joan Allen is a well-known American actress with three Oscar nominations. Jovian Eclipse 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "The following year, she appeared in the historical drama The Crucible as Elizabeth Proctor, a woman accused of witchcraft, and and" - spot the stray word :-)
Fixed. Jovian Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Allen's portrayal of Eve Archer, the wife of an FBI Agent cheated on by her husband's identity thief" - maybe "Allen's portrayal of Eve Archer, the wife of an FBI Agent cheated on by a man who has usurped her husband's identity" might be clearer.....?
Changed. Yeah, I agree. Jovian Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, @ChrisTheDude. Jovian Eclipse 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiji Tsuburaya filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eiji Tsuburaya is considered one of the most important and influential figures in the history of cinema. I've worked had to make this comprehensive list of all works in film and television (cited in accessible documents) as featuring his contributions. I'm looking forward to the comments from other users on how to improve this article that I have dedicated myself to completing with the help of other users such as Armegon. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Winter Olympics medal table[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after promoting the 2012 and 2020 Summer Olympic medal tables to said status and saving the 1984 Summer edition's table from demotion, I thought I would do another nomination for another Olympic edition that I mildly liked. I followed how the other ones I promoted/saved in improving this list. I will take any constructive comments in improving it. Birdienest81talk 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • Given that we have images of medal winners (including one of the athlete who won most golds) and that the specific topic of the article is medal winners, I would include that image in the infobox rather than a boring photo of a stadium
  • "during 2010 winter edition" => "during the 2010 winter edition"
  • "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation have won" => "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation won"
  • "Two bronze medals were awarded Daniela Maier and Fanny Smith for a third-place tie freestyle women's ski cross event" => "Two bronze medals were awarded to Daniela Maier and Fanny Smith for a third-place tie in the freestyle women's ski cross event"
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I have made the necessary adjustments based on your comments. Thank you.
--Birdienest81talk 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Biathletes Johannes Thingnes Bø, Quentin Fillon Maillet, and Marte Olsbu Røiseland, and cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov won the most total medals at the games with five each.": The writing is good, so I'm reduced to talking about commas (which I don't enjoy doing). "and cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov" requires either a comma before and after, or neither. A third option is: "Cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov and biathletes Johannes Thingnes Bø, Quentin Fillon Maillet, and Marte Olsbu Røiseland won the most total medals ...".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the three images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. Please consider reviewing List of early-diverging flowering plant families or List of basal superasterid families. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quick comment – Not a full review from me, but I just took a quick glance at it and saw that reference 11 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Birdienest81talk 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of basal superasterid families[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. I've got a new template in the "See also" section (but I'm trying to get it compact enough for use as a sidebar). All the lists in that template other than this one and the ones on the "rosids" line are now Featured Lists, so you can look at those if you want to see the previous FLC nominations. We're getting very close now to covering all the flowering plant families! I'm psyched. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PresN and I worked up a sidebar with links to the other lists. I think it will help give a sense of how the orders fit together, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert review on a topic not in my usual area. Feel free to argue with anything.

  • Perhaps it is worth linking woody to woody plant, to benefit unfamiliar readers.
  • This is optional, but since the Glossary is likely considered the body of the article and is partly written in prose, perhaps superasterids and the three plant orders would be worth linking again.
  • That's all from me. Nothing to quibble about, overall an excellent, well-structured and very informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- if you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from NØ[edit]

  • Support - After reading the list twice, I found nothing to quibble about. It is well-written and the images included demonstrate it well. I have an FAC currently which I would appreciate any comments on if you're interested. Regards.--NØ 14:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic, that support helps a lot, and I'll be happy to review the Meghan Trainor song. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Wait, for some reason I saw "FAC" and was thinking "FLC". I haven't reviewed at FAC for a long time; I've been sick off and on for a while and I haven't kept up with standards there. But I'll go through now and do some copyediting that I think will help the article pass at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by Avatar: The Way of Water[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this list because I started adding the accolades at the parent article, and then split into it due to the announcement of nominations by some award groups and organizations during the film's opening week, than Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The Way of Water and its sequels are more exciting and beautiful than the adorable-but-despicable Star Wars sequel trilogy. Chompy Ace 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • My only comment is that I don't think "Its story follows a Na'vi named Jake Sully (Worthington) as he and his family, under renewed human threat, seek refuge with the Metkayina clan of Pandora." really helps to explain what the film is about to anyone who hasn't seen it or the first one (like me). It doesn't say that Pandora is a planet or that Na'vi is a race that lives there. Could you explain in a tiny bit more detail? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 08:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I personally don't think there's a problem with FLC criterion #6 (stability), but I want to acknowledge that opinions differ on this. There have been new awards as recently as a few days ago, and there will undoubtedly be more coming. All things considered, I don't think that's a reason to hold up an FLC nomination.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image is fine.
  • 6. It is stable (but see above).
  • Close enough for a support. Well done.
  • Don't worry about this if you're busy, but I could really use another review on List of early-diverging flowering plant families ... I can't put up my next nomination until I get one more review on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I got my review already ... but feel free to come review anyway! - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from PanagiotisZois[edit]

Man, I remember seeing the first movies ages ago in school during class time... The Way of Water was actually the first movie I'd seen in years in theatres, but I hadn't seen the first in years, so I often didn't know what the hell was going on. XD Oh well, at least it had big blue men in loincloths. Anyway, great work on the list, but I have a few comments; sidenote, my math sucks.

According to the table, we have:

  1. 38 outright "Wins".
  2. 1 award still "Pending".
  3. and 67 "Nominations" or "Losses".

However, the infobox shows only 36 "Wins". Moreover, we have 107 "Nominations", rather than 106.

Concerning this, there also appear to be a few discrepancies between the table and infobox.

  1. The infobox states that the film received 0 Black Reel Awards, when the table says otherwise.
  2. Critics' Choice Movie Awards: the table shows there were 6 nominations and 1 win; the infobox shows however only 5 nominations.
  3. National Board of Review Awards: the infobox shows 2 awards from 2 wins; but it was only one award from one nomination as shown in the table.
  4. New York Film Critics Circle Awards appears on the infobox but not the table.
  5. San Diego Film Critics Society Awards: the infobox shows 0 wins but the table shows 1.
  6. St. Louis Film Critics Association Awards: appears in infobox but not the table.
  7. Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards: Table shows 1 win, whereas infobox shows 0.

Looking at a few other similar lists like this one, I'd recommend adding some brief info on the film's production. This would also help increase the size of the lead section, and hopefully ensure that the infobox doesn't indent the table to the left. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PanagiotisZois, done. Chompy Ace 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good job. Also, sorry about making the mistake regarding the St. Louis awards and not appearing on the table. The only other recommendation concerning prose would be adding some brief info on production in the second paragraph. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PanagiotisZois, done. Chompy Ace 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. I made an edit so that the table doesn't become sandwhiched. Let me know if you don't like it and would like to reverse it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PanagiotisZois, I don't like that in the References column in which refs are aligned left, which I like the middle one just like List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick and other lists do so (including List of accolades received by Toy Story 4), but it is done. Chompy Ace 23:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PanagiotisZois, I removed the production section per Special:Diff/1146641913, and other FLs such as List of accolades received by Toy Story 4, List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick, and List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film); these lists have their production details omitted. Chompy Ace 03:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, the section about production isn't something I'm that hardpressed about. Most necessary changes have been made, so based on prose, I support this promotion. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of phalangeriformes[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number 26 in our series of animal FLCs, we have the second list in the Diprotodontia subset of Australian marsupials: the list for the suborder Phalangeriformes. The last one, for Macropodiformes, has the kangaroos, and this one contains the possums, gliders, and cuscus. So, to Americans, it's 'possums, flying squirrels, and giant possums, except Australian and with a pouch. This half of the order is doing better than the 'roos, with no extinct species, but still has 12 of the 64 species either endangered or critically endangered. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Phalangeriformes is an suborder" - stray N in there :-)
  • Think that's it, actually! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "All extinct genera, species, or subspecies": Doesn't this imply that you've got at least one extinct taxon in this list? I don't see one.
  • Ah, yes, left the boilerplate text in. Now removed. --PresN 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Took me a bit; according to [1], for anything published in that journal, "The article and published supplementary material are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)". --PresN 02:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine (except as noted above).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from AK[edit]

  • I've done a minor c/e to fix up some issues, mainly ones similar to the ones I pointed out on the last list. Feel free to revert any you might disagree with.
  • I can't see any content or ref issues, so good enough for a support from me. AryKun (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of English football championship-winning managers[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited this list significantly over the past few days and now feel it meets featured standard. It's a list of the managers who've won the top level of English football since its inception. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "was the Football League First Division when it was replaced by the Premier League," - this does not make grammatical sense. Also, the First Division did not technically exist until the Second Division was added in 1892.
  • Thomas H. McIntosh should sort under M. The H is not part of his surname
  • I would suggest that The Wednesday should sort under W
  • What's with the unexplained asterisk by Frank Watt's name in 1906-07?
  • The order in which the managers are listed in the Won the League as a player and a manager table seems to be completely random, am I missing something?
    • It's ordered chronologically, so the first person to win the league as a player and manager to the last as shown by the last column. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In that table, why do some entries have multiple seasons on the same line separated by a comma but others do not?
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, I'm sure you'll add Arteta in a few weeks ;) -- Idiosincrático (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I don't see why there are so few images (nor why they are all bunched together under one caption). I think we should display every relevant image available on the side. Most awards/accolades lists do this.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a requirement for there to be images all the way down the side of the table. There are four images, I think that's enough. @Indopug:. NapHit (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrfan Khan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrfan Khan was one of the few actors to be successful in both Western and Indian cinema. He unfortunately died before his time in 2020. Here is a rundown of his key film and television roles. As always, I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • @FrB.TG and @Krimuk2.0: No rush ... I'm just pinging because I don't want to jump into a review before I see if you guys are satisfied with the changes since the last nomination (where you both commented). - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dank: I was not involved in the previous nomination. This was a project I was working on independently to the previous nominator. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've always been a fan of your work. Still, it will help me out if, before I review, I can get a sense of whether they're both happy with how the article has changed since last month when the previous nomination was archived. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dank sorry for the delayed response but the list looks much better than the last time. I’ll see if I have time for a full review. FrB.TG (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ... not a problem, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't ignoring the previous reviews and reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Filmfare Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role" (in the Notes column): since filmographies and awards lists often list nominations as well as wins, it would be helpful if there were something in the table (in the column or in a header or in a key) indicating whether awards represent nominations or wins.
  • Two films in the table that start with "The" aren't sorting correctly.
  • Refs #16 and #134 don't have a "retrieved on" date. I'm not taking a position on whether refs #75, #91 and #131 need the same.
  • The UPSD tool is a bit skeptical of Times of India; I'm not taking a position, I'm just asking you to search for and review these.
  • The first comment (on YouTube) on the feature-length film sourced to YouTube implies that something (probably the film?) is still under copyright ... which seems likely.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool probably isn't indicating any actual problems (but see above; also, this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present (except as above).
  • 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 one image seems fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your edits so far get it close enough for a support. Well done. I'll come back later and see what you decided to do with nominations vs. wins and the Times of India cites. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dank: Thanks for the copyediting, looks much better. The Times of India is generally accepted for these type of lists as I think previous concerns were more about political coverage and potential promotional pieces but it would be uncontroversial to use it for simple facts like appearances in a film or television show. When the award is mentioned on its own in the notes it is a win, when it was just a nomination then it has "nominated" next to it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With Times of India, all I wanted was for you to take a look ... which you did (you made one edit). On the subject of whether the word "nomination" should appear somewhere (more than just the one time) ... it's not something I care about, I'm just saying that I'm aware that it's something people talk about sometimes. All good! - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The US has 24 World Heritage Sites and 19 sites on the tentative list. This time I am nominating a bit longer list, so input will be very welcome to check for typos and grammar. The style is standard for the WHS lists. Tone 08:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Very happy to see this one submitted here, as I've visited several of these sites myself.

  • "while two sites (the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Montana) and Kluane / Wrangell – St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek (Alaska))" – consider rewriting without nested parentheses
  • "4000 archaeological sites" → "4,000 archaeological sites" (match comma usage from elsewhere in the article)
  • "more than a half" → "more than half"
  • "reaches the depths" → "reaches depths"
  • "The original wooden steeple used to house the Liberty Bell." – sentence fragment
  • "sea lions, bald eagle, and California brown pelican" – don't mix plural and singular forms
  • "The park is one of the world's largest remaining remnants of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary Geoflora era, it is a refuge of the flora and fauna that survived the Quaternary glaciations." – comma splice
  • "centre" → "center" (occurs three times in prose; use American English)
  • "storey" → "story" (American English)
  • "The mountains are meeting" → "The mountains meet"
  • "world's largest marine protected area" → "the world's largest marine protected area"
  • "another 2000 years" → "another 2,000 years" (consistent commas)
  • "one of symbols" → "one of the symbols"
  • "California Current flows" → "The California Current flows"
  • "the Pacific Plate, is subducted" → "the Pacific Plate is subducted"
  • "the Rio Grande river" → "the Rio Grande" ("Rio" and "river" are redundant)
  • "from the second half of 18th century, are planned cities" → "from the second half of the 18th century are planned cities" (note added word and removed comma)
  • Consider using Template:Efn for notes – they allow the footnote to pop up when the symbol is hovered over, which I think is more convenient for readers.
  • Alt text and sorting look good.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thank you for checking! Not sure about the sentence fragment, "The original wooden steeple used to house the Liberty Bell." -> Before they put it to display, the bell was in the steeple. Tone 14:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That one's on me; I misread the sentence and how "used" was used. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Reywas92[edit]

Also excited to see this one, been to 15 between the listed and nominated sites!

  • World Heritage Convention can be wikilinked (and shouldn't this be done for all these lists?)
  • Please be consistent with cultural heritage and natural heritage sentence structure.
  • "As of 2023," is unnecessary, this is unlikely to become outdated
    • I like it because every now and then (a couple of years) these lists get updated, especially for larger countries such as the US.
  • "Second Session" should be lowercase
  • "twenty different states" remove "different", it can't be 20 of the same states!
  • Rm comma after Pennsylvania
  • no "the" before Everglades NP
  • "and also functions as a model to understand the ecosystem processes" too close to source
  • "and" before mountain goat
  • "The canyon is..." sentence should have parallel clauses
    • It read fine to me, but please check now.
  • "Precambrian and Paleozoic portions particularly well exposed and containing rich fossil assemblages" also quite close to source
    • I think this is ok, if I change it too much, it will be clumsy. I am open to suggestions.
  • "The area is home to several mammal, bird, and reptile species," overly wordy, rephrase for conciseness or more meaning
  • The "in Danger" explanations are a bit wordy, that's half the description
    • But this is important, especially because Everglades have been listed more than once.
  • Olympic: "as well as" should be "and"
  • I don't think the paraphrased "that the evolution is taking its separate course" has quite the same meaning as the original, reword the sentence or use a different fact
    • Removed, it pretty much doubles the fact that isolation results in different subspecies and later species.
  • " largest pre-Columbian archaeological site north of Mexico" doesn't mean the same thing as the orginal "the largest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico", not sure if this paraphrase is still accurate.
    • This fact is listed later, criterion (iii). Both are correct.
  • "one of the largest remaining remnants of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era" another copy-paste
  • "the continuous biological evolution of the natural system" again, just changed "this" in the source to "the", not great
    • Removed.
  • Statue of liberty has "state" typo
  • "has welcomed millions of immigrants" in the source is more appropriate tense than "was welcoming millions of migrants", please rewrite
    • Already fixed by another editor.
  • "glaciers have created" -> "glaciers created"
  • "The altitudes range from 2,000 ft (600 m) to 13,000 ft (4,000 m), resulting in a wide variety of habitats that include diverse flora and fauna" kind of vague, rewrite or remove altogether and put in something more descriptive, it's Yosemite!
    • Removed. I guess I am going too long with some descriptions.
  • "in" -> "on the island"
  • "freedom, nobility, self-determination, and prosperity" copy-pasted
    • It is, but I cannot really use synonyms for those... Open to suggestions. The sentence overall is different, though.
  • Carlsbad: speleothems links to Speleogenesis instead of speleothem
  • "from the Permian" -> during
  • "of this site" seems unnecessary
  • "blurring of the boundaries between exterior and interior" copy-paste
    • What about now?
  • wikilink petrified trees
  • "allows the paleontologists study" "allow paleontologists to study"
  • "first elevators," "first" unneeded
  • "aesthetics" singular

Reywas92Talk 22:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @Reywas92: I'm through, sorry it took me a while! Thanks for checking, great comments! --Tone 20:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Olivier Giroud[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise this is the last list of goals ahah, they're just so straightforward and systematic, I love it. Oliver Giroud is the top goalscorer for France and is one of the greatest to have played the game. He has scored over 50 goals and is still active at international level, most recently playing in the 2022 FIFA World Cup final. Thank you all in advance for your reviews :) Idiosincrático (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Colon in the image caption should be a semi-colon
  • "11th November 2011" => "11 November 2011"
  • "and he has netted twice in a match on ten occasions, excluding his hat-trick" => "and he has netted twice in a match on ten other occasions"
  • "With France, Giroud won the 2018 FIFA World Cup, whilst also reaching" => "With France, Giroud won the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and also reached"
  • "often described as a 'complete striker'." - any reason why this is in single quote marks but the earlier descriptions were in double quote marks?
  • "France manager Didier Deschamps believes" - I would say "France manager Didier Deschamps said in [whenever]", as he won't be France manager for ever
  • "even when Giroud doesn't score" => "even when Giroud does not score"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All addressed, thank you legend @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- Phikia (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of international goals scored by Kelly Smith[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, Kelly Smith is an English footballer with 20 years with the national team. She was the top-scorer for England before Ellen white took her place. It was a simple list but some match reports for older female games were harder to come by. Its a clean and straightforward list, includes archived refs and has a simple lead. Thank you all in advance for your reviews. Cheers. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "in a 13−0 away thrashing" - "thrashing" is not encyclopedic language
  • "it was the team's highest winning margin before England defeated Latvia 20−0 on 30 November 2021" - this should either be a standalone sentence or the comma should be a semi-colon, also replace "before" with "until"
  • "At the 2009 Women's Euro final," => "In the 2009 Women's Euro final,"
  • "the 2−6 loss to Germany" => "the 6−2 loss to Germany"
  • "Smith enjoyed a short career with Great Britain" - she didn't really have a "career" with Great Britain, a team that only plays very occasionally
  • "The team qualified for the 2012 Olympics as hosts, she featured" - again, comma should be a semi-colon
  • "games against Brazil, Cameroon and New Zealand, including a pre-tournament match against Sweden2" - you can't have a list of games and then say "including [one that wasn't on the list]"
  • "a match which Smith did not feature" => "a match in which Smith did not feature"
  • "Scores and results list her team's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each White goal" - copy+paste error there?
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All addressed, thanks again legend. Every time I read your comments about my inability to write, I try and figure out why I am the most braindead human on Earth. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Don't be silly, the above are all very trivial points and overall the prose was very good. There's always going to be little grammar niggles that you don't spot when you look at your own writing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- Phikia (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !! Date !! Venue [...] becomes !scope=col | Date, with each header on its own line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of macropodiformes[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next stop our journey through the thousands of animal species in mammalia is number 25 in our series of animal list FLCs (10 lists for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 3 lists for Lagomorpha, and 7 single-order lists). We're still in Australia for this one, but we break out of the single-order lists into the first of a trio for the order Diprotodontia, with a list for the suborder Macropodiformes—or to be more clear, for a list of kangaroos. It's not just kangaroos, of course: there's wallabies, bettongs, and potoroos, among others, but together they make up a big chunk of Australian non-carnivorous marsupials. We've got 72 species in 3 families here, plus another 8 extinct species—for now, anyways, as this list has the most endangered and critically endangered species of any list I've done yet. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support – following a skim through the article, I see no major issues in the lead or table formatting, and I'm confident key issues have been fixed based on previous lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • There seems to be an issue with the map for the Eastern hare-wallaby entry
  • Suggest wikilinking forbs on first use as an obscure word (I for one certainly don't know what they are)
  • No map for the Crescent nail-tail wallaby or Nullarbor dwarf bettong?
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: - Fixed the map and added the link. Yes, no maps for those- I don't make the maps for these lists, just use what's there, and those two don't have maps created. --PresN 20:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Grizzled tree-kangaroo ... Eastern and northern New Guinea": Western?
  • File:Dendrolagus mbaiso.jpg: The license feels "off".
  • File:Macropus eugenii.jpg: I don't distrust the license, but "author" is blank.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine. I haven't checked alt text on this one.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 10:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed the Grizzled tree-kangaroo and Macropus eugenii issues; removed the Dendrolagus mbaiso image- agreed that it seems off, and I can't find proof on the source page that it was licensed as public domain. --PresN 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from AK[edit]

  • I've done a minor ce.
  • "40 members to 500,000" sounds weird, maybe "40 to 500,000 mature/adult individuals" would be better.
  • Changed to individuals, but I'm trying to avoid "40 to 500,000" because it can be confused with "40 (thousand) to 500 thousand"
  • "species are categorized as endangered species" second species is redundant, should be cut
  • Done
  • "have been made extinct" maybe "have gone extinct" instead? It seems like you're trying to emphasize how the extinctions were due to human impacts, but the phrasing is weird. Also in body
  • That was intentional, yeah, they didn't just go extinct on their own, but changed back
  • Don't see any other issues. Haven't checked the sources, but the formatting is alright and they're all reliable. AryKun (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AryKun: Done, replied inline. --PresN 12:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay then, it's a support from me since I can't see any other issues with the list. If you have the time, I would appreciate a review at my FLC. AryKun (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of railway stations in Melbourne[edit]

Nominator(s): NotOrrio (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working it on for the past two weeks and had even taken feedback from other editors during this process. The list article has almost entirley been changed in order to comply with the FL criteria including a new table and lead section. The lead covers the information on the network and gives a summary of the information included in the list. Additionally the list covers all important information including lines, transport connections and year opened NotOrrio (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Steelkamp[edit]

  • Is there a source for lines? You could use [2].
  • Is there a source for distance from Southern Cross?
  • Is there a source for zones?
  • The source for date opened is from 2010, so surely the stations opened since then require their own sources for opening date.
  • Is there not a specific page number for "Anderson, Rick (2010). Stopping All Stations"? Or is the opening dates for the various stations scattered throughout?
  • Is there a source for suburb? You could use a street directory or maybe there is an online map published by the Victorian government.
  • Are there any sources for the Heritage and tourist railways section?
  • Puffing Billy Railway, Mornington Railway and Yarra Valley Railway can be linked.
  • What does "In this list only, an asterisk (*) indicates stations at which trains are not normally scheduled to stop, and exist primarily for heritage purposes" mean? It is unclear to me.
  • What makes https://www.onlymelbourne.com.au/ reliable?
  • What makes https://vicsig.net/ reliable?
  • " "Media Release: NEW TIMETABLE TO IMPROVE METROPOLITAN TRAIN SERVICES". web.archive.org. 19 May 2011. Retrieved 26 February 2023." This reference format should be improved to name and link the original website and not just the web archive.
  • " "Kennett-era project sets bar for affordable level crossing removal | Public Transport Users Association (Victoria, Australia)". Retrieved 25 February 2023." This reference should be changed so that the name of the website and the publication location isn't included with the title of the webpage.
  • " Victoria, Public Transport. "Zones". Public Transport Victoria. Retrieved 17 February 2023." The author is malformed, presumably from using an automatically generating citation.
  • If you're going to use publication location for some references, it should either be done for all references or none at all. It should be consistent.
  • " https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV-default-site/Maps-and-Timetables-PDFs/Maps/Network-maps/Victorian-train-network-map.pdf" This reference is just a bare link.
  • "and 19 more used as Heritage/Tourist railways." Doesn't need to be capitalised.
  • Reference titles with all capital letters should be converted to title case as per MOS:ALLCAPS.
  • "There are 221 suburban railway stations that are currently operational in Melbourne.[2] In addition to the 221 stations currently opened there are an additional 73 are closed to passengers and 19 more used as Heritage/Tourist railways." This could be reworded so that the 221 stations is not mentioned twice in a row.
  • Contractions such as "don't" should be avoided.
  • "Most railway stations take the name of their suburb however, there are several stations on the network that don't. Such stations take the name of a nearby area or landmark. Currently, Southern Cross and Batman are the only two exceptions to such naming standards. Most stations on the network provide some sort of transport connections. Bus connections are common at most suburban stations. Stations in the inner suburbs and the central business district additionally may offer tram connection. However, not all stations offer transport connections. This is most commonly seen in the outer parts of the city." This seems like original research. I also question whether the first three sentences are important enough to include.
  • "(some stations are in the overlap between the two zones, where tickets for either zone may be used)." Long sentences in brackets should be avoided.
  • "On 4 March 2007, zone 3 was abolished by being incorporated into zone 2." This seems like recentism. You would probably be better off not mentioning any history of the ticketing system and only mention how it works currently.
  • "The level crossing removal at Mont Albert and Surrey Hills resulted in both stations being closed and replaced by the under construction of the new Union railway station, which brought the number of stations on the network from 222 to 221." Again, this seems like recentism. Unless you are going to do a short history of the entire system in the lead, this should be left out. Even if you do a history of the entire system, this would be too minor to mention.

That's all for now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

about the suburbs metro trains melbourne does put them on the stations sub page on their website however it there is no large list of every railway station's suburbs meaning a each station requires a source for the suburbs NotOrrio (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Source 1 the network map is ment to source the entire paragraph if needed I can copy it
  • Similar to the suburbs the zones are on the metro trains website but there is no large list
  • Added sources for all the stations opened after 2010
  • Decided to change it to "This asteriex indicates that the station is only opened for heritage/tourist based purposes"
  • Most sources with publication location are done so because the source title includes the location for example big build victoria puts the station names in all their lxrp articles
  • Removed 221 from the first paragraph
  • Added a source of an old map network map including transport connections to back that up and removed the suburbs sentence
  • Since the old network map (from 2011) includes the zones I could use that source for stations opened before and the metro trains melbourne source for the newer stations
NotOrrio (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Steelkamp
Addressed all the feedback and had taken action on it except for the sourcing of the distance, zones and suburbs doe they need to be sourced i've read through other railway station featured lists for inspiration and they don't seem to have sources on such information NotOrrio (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
added zones for suburbs and zones NotOrrio (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey NotOrrio. I plan to have another look at this list later today. Steelkamp (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by SounderBruce

Just dropping some notes, but I might conduct a full review later:

  • MOS:APOSTROPHE compliance is needed in the citations, especially those for "Victoria's Big Build".
  • There seems to be an overreliance on sources from the government (the aforementioned Big Build); consider replacing them with secondary sources.
  • Capitalization in "Transportation Connections", "Planned Connections", and "Projected Opening" need to follow sentence case.
  • The Heritage and tourist railways section needs to be converted into a table for consistency and beefed up with more sources. As it stands, it's awkwardly pasted on to the end of the long table sections. SounderBruce 23:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looked through your feedback and fixed the apostrophes, capitalaztion, made the heritage and tourist railways a table & replaced several of the government sources with secondary ones NotOrrio (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" |Name becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ![[Aircraft railway station|Aircraft]] becomes !scope=row | [[Aircraft railway station|Aircraft]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done NotOrrio (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates from nominator[edit]

  • Added sources for suburbs and zones using the metro trains melbourne sources (not for showgrounds and flemington as they didn't have a metro trains page for some reason
  • Added a new paragraph for railway lines NotOrrio (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1962[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, here's my 21st nomination in this series. In this particular year in the R&B charts it was all about the dance craze, as everyone was twisting the night away doing the mashed potato. Feedback as ever most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Very minor, but suggest using {{nowrap|chart-topper}} to avoid line breaks for hyphenated words. (for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices)
  • Should The 4 Seasons be sorted first since you listed it as a numeric and not as The Four Seasons?
  • That's all I have. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • {{color|gray|1964}} (in the navbox) answers a question I had about navboxes ... thanks for that.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I found nothing to copyedit. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. No problems.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

United States presidential elections in Florida[edit]

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added a lot of content following the format of other Featured Lists (Such asUnited States presidential elections in Arkansas, etc.), I believe this list has FL standards compliant 金色黎明 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Newtothisedit[edit]

Initial observations

  • Definitely need to mention to mention the states status as a swing state as from the 1990s to 2020, as Florida was far and away the most important swing state.
  • The sentence on 2000 is good but I would mention the fact that it was a recount and that Gore won originally.
  • Trump is listed as winning over 100% of the vote in 2020

Support--Newtothisedit (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Finally, John C. Breckinridge won the state" - are we still talking about 1860?
  • Don't start sentences with "but" (occurs in a couple of places)
  • "Florida voted for the Republican nominee in all three presidential elections during reconstruction era" =>" Florida voted for the Republican nominee in all three presidential elections during the reconstruction era"
  • And on that note, what the heck is the "reconstruction era"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • "shortly after the Reconstruction era" - there was no capital R before....?
  • "Thus, prior to the 1952 presidential election, the Republican Party had only won Florida in the 1928 presidential election" - the preceding sentences don't make it clear (to me at least) why this would have occurred? Are you saying that blacks and poor whites vote Republican so the changes mentioned in the previous sentences reduced their support? If so, make that clear.
  • It seems like suddenly after 1952 the state swung dramatically to supporting the Republicans. What changed?
  • "In the 2000 presidential election, Associated Press" => "In the 2000 presidential election, the Associated Press"
  • "first called Florida for Al Gore" - and his party was......?
  • "later in the evening, AP reversed their call and giving it to Bush" - "and" doesn't make grammatical sense here
  • Also, who was Bush? This is the first mention of him so we need his full name and a link
  • "in the Bush v. Gore" - "the Bush v. Gore"? What is this?
  • "which made George W. Bush won" - ah, there's the full name and link. Move them to the first mention of him
  • also, the above doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "Trump's home state" - first mention, so what's his full name?
  • Not actually sure how any of the sentence starting "Trump's home state" is relevant to this article without more context
  • "furthermore, it has been seen as a bellwether" - pretty sure I have never seen that last word before in my life. What does it mean? Is there an appropriate link?
  • That's what I got on the lead, there's quite a lot of work to be done. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your advice, I have altered the article according to you. 金色黎明 (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "And in the 1860 presidential election" - don't start a sentence with "and"
  • "Due to the secession, Florida" - Easter egg link on Florida
  • " participated the 1868 presidential election" => " participated in the 1868 presidential election"
  • From our article, it looks like Reconstruction should have a capital R
  • "called Florida for democratic nominee" - Democratic should have a capital D
  • "Later in the evening, AP reversed their call and giving it" - doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "republican nominee George W. Bush" - Republican should have a capital R
  • "the Bush v. Gore on December 12" - still no explanation of what "the Bush v. Gore" was
  • Need to link Donald Trump -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, I have corrected them and delete some unnecessary things. I have also edited the last paragraph. 金色黎明 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even more comments[edit]

  • Rutherford B. Hayes should sort under H, not B
  • "Lyndon B. Johnson should sort under J
  • Alton B. Parker should sort under P
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt should sort under R
  • George H. W. Bush should sort under B
  • ......and so on. Check the sorting on all the names -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have checked and corrected all of the sortname template. And I notice that John St. John should sort under St. John but not John. 金色黎明 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quick comment– Not that I want to get too heavily involved in politics, but I think you have the wrong Democrat in 1972. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder, I've fixed this. 金色黎明 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placeholder from Kavyansh[edit]

Thanks for working on the list. I have worked and raised quite a few lists of this series to FL status, and would be happy to leave some comments in a due course -– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Anjelica Huston[edit]

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the success of Wednesday, I felt like it would be appropriate to nominate this for feature list status.Thankfully, the User:InternetArchiveBot started working again. Leo Mercury (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "For her Woody Allen-directed performances in the films" - "For her performances in the Woody Allen-directed films" would be slightly better IMO
  • "Lonesome Dove (1989), The Mists of Avalon (2001), and Medium (2008–2009), all of which were nominated at the Primetime Emmy Awards." => "Lonesome Dove (1989), The Mists of Avalon (2001), and Medium (2008–2009), for all of which she was nominated at the Primetime Emmy Awards."
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • If she hasn't received any recognition as an author, I would leave that part out from the lead. Also, I would consolidate "director and producer" as "filmmaker".
  • Do we really need the one-sentence lead sentence to stand on its own as a paragraph? It can easily be merged with the second para.
  • "She also received acclaim for her portrayal of the Grand High Witch in Roald Dahl's film adaptation The Witches (1990)" - while the source does say her performance is known for its "vampy splendor", I don't think that necessarily counts as "critical acclaim". FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done. Leo Mercury (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates[edit]

Nominator(s): CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria, and I think this is a list of fantastic people from all around the world and makes for interesting content. CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Nomader[edit]

  • Oppose for now until concerns are addressed. The criteria the list currently fails are 1 (Prose), 2 (Lead), and 4 (Structure). I'll address the points below -- I think this is a great start, but it needs some serious work to reach FL level.
    • 1. Prose: The article includes thoughts that are a bit off on formatting, particularly in the "award ceremony" section (the "In 2012" sentence as an example doesn't include a verb and isn't actually a sentence). This leads into the lead issues in the next bullet.
    • 2. Lead: FLs should have well-developed lead sections that clearly define the scope and inclusion criteria. An example of an award article that I think could be a good direction to emulate would be the Richard Dawkins Award or the Gabor Medal, both of which clearly give the criteria (or lack thereof) for the award in the lead and give context around its history and creation.
      • A list like this should really not have those other sections of prose -- I think they could be easily merged into the lead in an engaging way that would summarize the list nicely.
    • 4. Structure: The lists are unfortunately not sortable (see Help:Sorting or copy a format from another similar award list to see how to do it best). The regional laureates and annual laureates lists contain different columns for no seemingly particular reason -- I think consistency would work better here (although I think the headers make sense). It might make sense to borrow from those other examples that I showed which included a citation or summary of their work or why they were awarded (I just found an example for the 2021 laureate with a little searching here: [3]).

Just a note that I'm also submitting my review to the Wikicup. I think there's a lot of work to be done -- it's doable, but it'll be a bit of a lift. Ping me if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help answer them! Nomader (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the way you've delivered the feedback, because that is actionable and gives me a path forward to improving the article further. I will try to make the improvements and if I do so, I will ping you again and ask you to reconsider the improved version. CT55555(talk) 16:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, please do! I once accidentally swapped all of my references in a list with over 50 of them and had to do a comprehensive spotcheck of them in an FLC, having issues that can be resolved happens all the time. Let me know if you have any questions as you're going through the page again. Nomader (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have taken action regarding each piece of helpful feedback that you have provided and I wonder if you would be willing to reappraise the list now? CT55555(talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saw this! Will take a look in the next couple of days, thanks for the flag here! Nomader (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm coming back to this based on @CT55555:'s response above. This is definitely an improvement in a number of ways, but it still needs some work. I've listed below where I think it can be improved still:

  • 2. Lead:
    • Although it's great that the prose has been condensed into a summary style in the lead, I think there's still a lot of context missing that I mentioned above. Why was the award initially established? Again, I think examples like the Richard Dawkins Award and to a lesser extent, the Gabor Medal show examples of how to approach this.
    • I think that the sentences appear a bit out of order -- maybe the nomenclature of the award could be added after the lead sentence somewhere along with an expansion of the award's history?
  • 3. Comprehensiveness:
    • I didn't bring this up specifically as a criteria that needed improvement before, but there's no context on why certain people received the award -- and I think that the list should include it (other similar awards like the Buchanan Medal, Crafoord Prize, and the Foot in Mouth Award all include this context). I've done some research and found press releases about each award member through Google (e.g., [4]), but I haven't found official citations that have gone along with it. I like the way the Richard Dawkins Award has a notes section which clarifies in a footnote that "This column broadly outlines the work and views of the recipient" because there is no official citation, and I think that style could be emulated here broadly.\
  • 4: Structure:
    • The lists are *much* better overall in terms of structure, thanks for adding sorting to it. Could you also make the images a larger size, similar to the other lists I've cited above? From a WP:ACCESS perspective, I'm concerned that they may not be viewable for the average person.
    • Images should also include ALT text per WP:ALT.

It's on the right track, but still has a good amount of work ahead of it so I'm still an oppose !vote for now. Ping me when you'd like me to take another look and I'll be happy to review! Nomader (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the actionable feedback. I've improved the lead, I've made the images larger, I've started adding rationales, have more to do, including the alt text. I'll ping you once I finish those tasks. CT55555(talk) 02:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All images now have ALT text. Rationales are still underway. CT55555(talk) 02:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for helping me make this more accessible! I have addressed this issue in both tables. Action on other feedback is ongoing. CT55555(talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the 5th article from the music bank series winners that I am nominating at FLC. As always, any feedback is very much appreciated. -- EN-Jungwon 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • ""Plz Don't Be Sad" earned boy group Highlight their first Music Bank award since leaving Cube Entertainment and re-debuting with Around Us Entertainment under their rebranded name." - source? Also a bit odd to refer to their "rebranded name" with no explanation
    Added source. Would ""Plz Don't Be Sad" earned boy group Highlight (formerly Beast) their first Music Bank award since leaving Cube Entertainment and re-debuting with Around Us Entertainment." be better?
    That would work for me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In April, girl group Laboum achieved their first music show award with "Hwi Hwi" from their second mini album." - source?
    Done
  • "Boy group Wanna One achieved their first number one on Music Bank with their debut single "Energetic"and" - there's a space missing between two words. Also the "and" should probably be "which"
    Done
  • "Yoon achieved his first number one over 27 years after debut" => "Yoon achieved his first number one over 27 years after his debut"
    Done
  • "their first ever music show trophies for "Pretend," "A Daily Song" and "Like It," respectively." => "their first ever music show trophies for "Pretend", "A Daily Song" and "Like It" respectively."
    Done
  • "Epik High (pictured) won Music Bank for the first time for "Love Story."" => "Epik High (pictured) won Music Bank for the first time for "Love Story"."
    Done
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All done. Thanks again. -- EN-Jungwon 08:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam[edit]

Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Vietnamese politics is exciting! Hopefully, you find this list as exciting as I do. I nominated this list by happenstance—I was planning to start work on the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party—but I saw that Wikipedia was missing some very basic articles on the CPV. I didn't create this article, but I modelled it on another FL. I, however, made some changes of my own to improve referencing and style.

I know that communist politics, and Vietnamese politics more generally, is not the sexiest topic in the world, but I hope some of you will take your time to review it. TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Airship[edit]

I'll give this a shot. I don't know Vietnamese, so my comments will naturally focus on the prose (which is where they tend to go anyway).

  • The lead is very lengthy: five pretty massive paragraphs. Per MOS:LEAD, it shouldn't be more than four unless the article is that unsummarisable.
  • What this does, in effect, is make the lead unengaging and difficult to follow, especially for those unfamiliar with the topic.
  • The fourth paragraph seems generally unconcerned with the article subject, and would be more suited for Politics of Vietnam or something.
    • Removed, I agree with you!
  • You should also try to streamline the prose better. Take the second paragraph, for example. The ending sentences of "This anti-corruption campaign ... Or, as former United States diplomat ..." would be better served coming after the first two sentences outline the anti-corruption campaign.
    • Fixed
  • On the note of streamlining, "anti-corruption" is written five times in one paragraph.
    • Fixed

Other comments:

  • Is the length column of the meetings section really necessary? I feel that it's fairly self-explanatory.
    • I would say yes, some people might want to sort according to length of meetings.. The other columns don't allow for that.
  • I find the linking of the items in the Type section somewhat unnecessary. It would be better if there was a glossary above or below the list explaining what each type actually meant, rather than linking to generic Regulation or Decision-making articles.
    • I don't have any sources that explain what these terms mean to the CPV so that I'm unable to do sadly.

I hope you find my comments useful, TheUzbek. You might want to take a look at my current FLC nomination—any comments at all would be very welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I want to try cutting the lead down, but I'm quite busy at the moment. If I haven't responded by Sunday 26th, ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-smile.svg THe problem with this list is two-fold. First, Vietnam and its Communist Party are not transparent about the work of the Politburo. Therefore this article has to be a little bit of both: during its electoral term - what it did - and its composition - who are members. I'm currently working (here) on the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. I can write a text - an article on that topic - since the CPV is at the very least way more transparent on the CPVCC's meetings.. The plan then is to create two to three separate articles on the following: Apparatus of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (or just Composition of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam).
One cannot to that with the Politburo or its Secretariat or the Central Military Commission... But maybe we can do it with the CIC... --TheUzbek (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Communist Party of Vietnam should be linked, and shouldn't be used in acronym form immediately
    • Fixed
  • "the Politburo is between the party congresses convocations and the Central Committee's plenary sessions, the highest decision-making institution in the CPV and Vietnam." what does "in between" mean?
    • Fixed -- is it understandable now?
  • "The total number of meetings the 12th Politburo convened has not been publicly disclosed to the media. Still, some have been publicly reported and are listed below (see "Meetings" section)." Are these sentences necessary?
    • I would say yes... It showcases the lack of transparency and our lack of knowledge on Vietnamese politics. Its as if the United States Federal Government didn't disclose the number of cabinet meetings or what the cabinet discussed.
  • "The 12th National Congress adopted a resolution ..." does this need to be a lengthy quote, or can it be removed/paraphrased?
    • Fixed
  • "The 5th Plenary Session ... on 22 January 2018" can be one sentence at most. How about "Đinh La Thăng was removed from the Politburo in May 2017 when the 12th Central Inspection Commission started investigating him for mismanaging the state-owned enterprise PetroVietnam, resulting in a loss of 800 billion Vietnamese dong; he was arrested in December 2017 and sentenced to thirteen years in prison in January 2018."
    • Fixed
  • Is it politburo or Politburo?
    • Fixed
  • "Institutionally, the campaign was strengthened by ... cases drawing public attention". are two long quotes really needed? Why not "In tandem with the anti-corruption drive, Prime Minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc began to streamline the government by cutting the number of deputy prime ministers from five to four and ministries from 26 to 22; in addition, six Politburo members were appointed to serve in the Central Steering Committee on Anti-corruption, the Central Inspection Commission was given auditing and supervisory powers, and seven teams were set up to detect and investigate public corruption cases."
    • Fixed, but not as suggested.. What do you think of the present sentence?
  • Is the David Brown quote necessary?
    • Fixed, removed.
  • I got lost in the third paragraph. I don't get why regulation 90-QĐ/TW is important, and it seems to contradict itself: "only Trọng and Đinh Thế Huynh did not meet the criteria to be elected General Secretary ... Nguyễn Phú Trọng was indeed elected for a third term".
    • Fixed, rewrote and shortened quote. More understandable now?

I'll leave those here for your inspection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I've responded to you're comments. --TheUzbek (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: So?? --TheUzbek (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Title becomes !scope=col | Title. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. You have this for some columns (e.g. the first table) but not all.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 01-CT/TW becomes !scope=row | 01-CT/TW. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Role (campaign two)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Role has become a big cultural phenomenon, the channel is among the highest earners on Twitch, and the show has propelled the actual play genre forward. I'm nominating this article specifically because it is a nearly complete work (ex: it has plot summaries for its 141 episodes unlike other Critical Role episode lists) with work done by multiple editors. I've just finished addressing points of improvement raised during a Guild of Copy Editors review. This is my first time nominating an article & I look forward to your reviews! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Nomader

Oppose until the plot section and other minor comments are dealt with.

Prose (1):

  • In the lead, there's a citation after the phrase "four months after the conclusion of the first campaign." Per WP:CITEFOOT, "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." I think this isn't a contentious citation here and would be fine at the end of the sentence instead.
  • I think that the upcoming Amazon adaptation could be merged into the end of the previous paragraph but could also see the argument for keeping them separate. Defer to you here.
  • Not sure why there's a use of a direct quote with the Collider article in the beginning of the "Production and format" section. I think it could say something along the lines of (please put this into the right words but I think you'll see where I'm going with this): "Collider reported that the second campaign had aired for over 530 hours, including 100 hours dedicated to battles, and previewed that the finale would be seven hours long."
  • The reception section isn't really grouped by theme, and is instead kind of grouped by reviewer. Take a look at The Simpsons (season_10)#Critical reception to see a good example of how a reception section can be better at giving information based on themes for the reader.
    • I regrouped it and brought in a few more sources; P1 is on the recommendation of this campaign as the Critical Role starting point, P2 is the viewership (which is fairly limited compared to something like Nielsen ratings), P3 is the criticism of the show's length (both individual episodes & as a series), and P4 is on the plot points critics covered (mostly Molly's death & his body returning as an antagonist). Let me know if that wasn't conveyed or if there are any other places of improvement. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comprehensiveness (3):

  • (a) I think that the plot section is far too broad here. For comparison, MOS:TVPLOT recommends that whole seasons of television shows use *either* episode tables that limit descriptions to 200 words, or to a prose summary of the entire season of no more than 500 words -- not both. I know this isn't a television show, but it's the closest guide that I could think of here (a serial series with hours of content). Examples of Featured Lists that I think do a good job of showcasing how this split works are listed here: The Simpsons (season 10), Desperate Housewives (season 1), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), Bleach (season 9). In this case, it's obviously not exactly a 1:1 comparison -- I would keep the setting section (which is important context for the detail found in the episode summaries) but then would cut the entire rest of the plot section and allow the episode listings to do the heavy lifting here.
    Honestly, good question -- my gut based on other FL examples of long-running television shows (again the closest thing I can think of in comparison to this situation) like Avatar episodes and other series would be that you would actually just not have it at all. I'd keep the description to extremely broad strokes with details of settings, and maybe small highlights of particularly poignant moments -- but the episode descriptions will tell the story in more detail in a "summary style" (per MOS:SUMMARY) in the Season article, and then the full list should just include the setting. You already have a plot section that gets told through each of the episode descriptions.
    In my own personal editing example, I think back to when I gave a super-detailed plot summary of the play Hamlet for the game Elsinore that I collaborated on with a user from the Shakespeare WikiProject, and when I was going through the GA process, the reviewer (rightfully) cut it down to like, a quarter of the size (see this diff: [5]). And it felt a bit weird to me to cut it out because we'd spent so much time with them tweaking it and sourcing it and figuring it out... just to realize that it was way too much detail. In this case, I think it's an incredible effort of highlighting and focusing 550 hours (!!!) of content but it's redundant to the descriptions. Nomader (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That makes sense! It was an original holdover as the really long plot summary was what led to the individual campaigns being split off from the Critical Role article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (b) There should be a citation for Ashley Johnson in the main cast section (you can probably just use #11 which is above it).

Style (5):

A spot check of citations was all good to go. This is unbelievably thorough work, and although it needs some large changes (mostly the removal of the "Plot" section of the synposis along with a full re-working of the reception section), the level of work to summarize all of those episodes is extraordinary. Please ping me once you're finished with edits and I'll be happy to strike my oppose -- this review is also being submitted for the Wikicup. Nomader (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review Nomader! I'll start addressing some of the points you listed above and ping you when I'm done. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, sounds good! Just a heads up that I'll be on vacation from tomorrow, Thursday February 16, to Tuesday February 21st -- in case I don't get back to you right away, I'll only be checking sporadically during that time. Nomader (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nomader: Just wrapped the last point (notes on the reception sections above). I hope you have a good holiday! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Luckily you caught me 24 hours early! The reception section is an incredible improvement and reads much, much better. I'm happy to support now that all of my concerns have been addressed. Really impressive work to everyone involved (especially on the summary plot notes for each episode which I haven't talked that much about here). Thanks for being so prompt! Nomader (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again for all your feedback! I've also dropped a request for a fair-use map at the Graphics Lab; they have a queue but the list might end up with a map for the setting section down the line. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of LGBT Olympians and Paralympians[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is now one of the largest lists by size on Wikipedia. I suppose it's really a few lists that add up to one subject. I have put a lot of work into it this year, basing the appearance on a comparable list I found at the Hebrew Wikipedia, taking some poor bullet lists from related articles, and altogether adding the hundreds of missing entries for completion. I nominate it as a candidate for FL because I think it is quite a neat complete work - though, more on that - and for advice on further improvements, of course. Given its size, I sure am expecting some! I am currently in the process of migrating its many references to a more user-readable harvref format, since there are also hundreds of those. The only concern I have to it becoming FL is that it is a dynamic list; former Olympians can come out at any time, and there are more predictable periods in the run-up to Games when already-out athletes are announced to be competing. However, we have other dynamic lists at FL, and while they may be less prone to change, I think the somewhat predictability here makes it manageable. Happy to answer any questions, and thanks for looking it over! Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical considerations[edit]

Before getting too far into this nomination, I want to note that this page is really long. Right now, the post-expand include size is 1790806/2097152 bytes, or about 85.4% of the maximum page size (2 MiB per WP:LENGTH). I think it would be prudent to consider either splitting the page or reducing the page size – otherwise, there will likely be serious technical issues within a few years. (Removing images from the table might help, though I don't know how much the HTML code to display the images actually contributes.) I'm open to suggestions here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I second this. This is a great list, and the pictures and notes are instrumental to it, despite making up so much of the length - a list of names alone wouldn't be as interesting. But the fact is that the athletes added for the 2020 and 2022 games alone are 20% of the incredibly long list, which means we can safely assume another massive addition for the 2024 games. As RunningTiger123 notes, it's already 85% of the way to the point where the page will literally stop rendering partway through- as in it will just cut off in the middle of the table and not display anything further down. This means that, very likely, in 1.5 years the page will be unreadable by anyone, and it's frankly already unreadable for anyone who is on a slower internet connection, which is a good chunk of the reading populace. It's nice to have it all in one page, but this is, unfortunately, a problem that a lot of longer lists like this face, which then reach the same unfortunate conclusion: you have to break it up into sublists. I'd recommend breaking it up into at least 3 or 4 lists by year of Olympic debut, though alphabetically is also sometimes done. It's up to you, but something has to be done, I'm afraid. --PresN 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123 and PresN: Thank you both, these are exactly the kind of comments I was hoping for on that side - as well as table accessibility notes (which would presumably make the code longer if not up to scratch). As for resolving it, the longer notes take up quite a bit, even the shorter notes get long with references; the images are around 100 characters per entry, which is a lot with this many, but not as much as the notes. I think I agree that splitting is the better solution; the LGBT issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games article (which needs work, but) has some rough historical periods - would these be beneficial to breaking it up?. Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thought for splits: Summer athletes, Summer artists, intersex athletes, Winter athletes, and Paralympians getting lists at separate articles. The Summer athletes at least could do with splits, too, I fear. Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a technical guy, like, at all, but my lists all have a lot of images ... and I don't know if they've done something in the last two years to fix the problem, but a few reviewers were telling me that some of the images stopped loading for them when I got up to roughly 100 images. You have a lot of SVG pictograms on top of a lot of photos, too ... I don't know if that's a problem, but it might be. Personally, I haven't had the problem of images not loading for my own lists, so I can't test the problem I'm talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think splitting by type of athlete is fine, but I agree that the same issue will still arise with summer athletes. If I had to pick a non-arbitrary cutoff, maybe start a new list from 2004 onwards, as transgender athletes were first allowed to compete at those games? I could also see the list being split from 2020 onwards since those were described as the "Rainbow Olympics", though I think it's probably too soon to determine if that's a meaningful nickname that will stand the test of time. I would also be fine with a somewhat arbitrary cutoff from 2000 onwards (i.e., pre-21st century in the first list), or really at any point in the last 20 years. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ideas - I think 2004 is a good suggestion. I'll probably start with 2004-present to see how long the resulting lists are, in case the pre-2004 needs to be split further. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kingsif: Okay, since you're splitting this, would you prefer to close this nomination, or do you think you'll have a nominate-able chunk that can take the whole list's place in short order? Up to you. Since you asked, I'll give you an accessibility review for this list in a second in any case. --PresN 04:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the accessibility review, and the input so far. I think that splitting this means splitting everything out and, maybe (and which I've prepared for), leaving a boring old plain text list at the List of LGBT Olympians and Paralympians article/title (essentially to serve as a hub and to preserve history) - I think I will leave this open because a variety of cut-pastes and scraping the names shouldn't take too long. The process can then decide if the plain list is suitable, right? And I'm sure the process will come up with suggestions to, I suppose, "highlight" some of the more prominent athletes of each type. Of course, I trust your judgment on if this nomination should be closed and, perhaps, one of the split articles to be nominated once all cleaned up. Kingsif (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current list at the title of this nomination should be suitable now, to begin review. There are only the summary tables now present at this list, and I think I have made these accessible with this edit. Thanks again for this. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123: For future reference, how are you able to see the post-expand size? ~ HAL333 20:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HAL333: You have to open the page source and scroll to the bottom of the HTML code; close to the bottom, there's a comment with various page stats. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, got it. Thanks, ~ HAL333 23:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Unless otherwise specified, these apply to both the main table as well as the summary ones in {{LGBT Olympians overview}}
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. You have captions for the tables at LGBT Olympians overview, but not the main one.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Country becomes !scope=col | Country. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Robert de Montesquiou]] becomes !scope=row | [[Robert de Montesquiou]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Note that the "primary" column of cells doesn't have to be the first column, but it usually makes more sense for it to be so. Right now, you have the name and picture as two separate columns, with a grouped header cell and some sorting magic so that readers can sort by the picture column and actually sort by the name, but it may be cleaner overall to just have the first column be a combined "name <br/> picture", or else swap the name and picture columns. It is fine to leave the name column as the primary and the second column if you don't want to change it, though.
  • This would also fix a second issue: none of your images have alt text, which is needed for non- or poorly-sighted readers. It's fine to skip the alt text if you have a caption that explains what the picture is (e.g. the name of the person) in the same cell (or rather to have a generic "|alt=athlete" or something, since otherwise the alt is the image url which is a mess), but right now you don't have it in the same cell, so the images don't have explanatory text right alongside them as far as screen reader software is concerned, and would need an alt text of the person's name at minimum.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 04:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • What's actually sourcing the "by sport" table at the top? The other tables I can see summarise data already displayed in the big table so I guess fall under WP:CALC, but the level of detail in the "by sport" table isn't displayed in the big table. If I want to know who, say, the one intersex judoka is, how can I confirm that? Do I have to check the references against all the judo entries (none of the judo entries mention intersex in the notes column)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: For that particular one, the list of intersex Olympians just got split out. More generally, yes, it is looking through all the entries. When the list was much less formal, some of the entries had the person's sexuality/gender identity, and I think the list of LGBT sportspeople is still like that. The issue with having such a column has increasingly been people not labelling themselves, or having identities that don't neatly fit one word — and it's obviously not something we want to mislabel. Of course, as comes to gender identity and intersex people, this is a bit more cut and dry than with sexuality, so if you have ideas on how to incorporate the information in the tables, I would love to hear them. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kingsif, in the by country tables may I suggest that link point the relevant country at the Olympics article, or where is exist, the country at the Summer/Winter Olympics article rather than just the country article, eg. Argentina at the Olympics and Australia at the Winter Olympics. – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ianblair23: great suggestion, thanks! Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 4th Division was initially raised in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then formed again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured. This was previously nominated although the process stalled as I ended up on a wikibreak. Back in action and looking to finalize this one. The points raised in the previously nomination have hopefully all been addressed. Look forward to any feedback to whip this into shape as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Galbraith Lowry Cole sorts under L, suggesting that Lowry was part of his surname, yet in the notes column you refer to him as just Cole, suggesting that Lowry was in fact a forename. Which is correct?
    After taking a look at his article and family articles, it should just be Cole. I have updated so it should search correctly now.
  • "Lambton was incapacitated on 12 September 1917" - complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "Lipsett was killed in action on 14 October 1918" - and this one
  • "The division was reformed in England" - this one too :-)
    The above all addressed
  • "On 13 December 1934, Brind was temporary assigned" - temporarily, surely?
    Quite, and fixed.
  • "On 1 January 1978, the formation was redesignated as the 4th Armoured Division" - another note that needs a full stop
  • "The division was reformed in England" - this one likewise :-)
    Added for both
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • The first FLC for this was archived in May; I've checked the diff since then, and everything I said there still goes, so ...
  • Support. Please consider reviewing my FLC nomination, or if there's some issue that is getting in the way of that, please tell me what it is. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. I'm running a 102 degree fever at the moment ... you should have seen me trying to write correct regex, it was a hoot ... so if that question came across as pointed, please ignore it, that's not what I was feeling. I just wonder sometimes why I don't get more reviews than I get ... it may be something simple that I'm missing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. No worries about wording, and I am hoping you are feeling much better! Re: reviews, I use to try and do them but stopped many years ago as I never felt comfortable doing them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Idiosincrático (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 winners[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Indianapolis 500 is a 500 mile auto race held at the fabled Indianapolis Motor Speedway during the month of May and part of the informal Triple Crown of Motorsport. Many famous drivers such as Hélio Castroneves, A. J. Foyt, Rick Mears, Al Unser, Dario Franchitti, Mario Andretti, Johnny Rutherford, Juan Pablo Montoya, Bobby Unser and Jacques Villeneuve have been winners of this event. I look forward to all the comments on this review. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "reverting to International 500-Mile Sweepstakes Race from 1920 until 1980" - and since then.......?
  • "The American Automobile Association were the governing body" => "The American Automobile Association was the governing body"
  • "between its inception until 1955" => "from its inception until 1955"
  • "then United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997" => "then the United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997"
  • "which sees a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face added to the base" - would probably be better as "and a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face is added to the base of the trophy itself"
  • "The driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in victory lane each year since 1960" => "Since 1960 the driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in the victory lane"
  • In the key what's a rookie in this context? A driver in his first year of competitive racing? A driver driving in this particular race for the first time? Or something else?
    • A driver who is competing for the first time at the Indianapolis 500 EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "Indicates winning driver was a Indianapolis 500 rookie" should be "Indicates winning driver was an Indianapolis 500 rookie" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's probably too much detail for the lead to mention that the 2020 race was held in August due (I presume) to COVID, but it might merit a footnote
  • Note d is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose review from Airship — OPPOSE[edit]

  • "200 lap, 500 mi (800 km)" should be a separate sentence, to avoid number overload.
  • The lead doesn't specify when the inception of the event was.
  • "before becoming the 300-Mile Liberty Sweepstakes in 1919" I can't help but notice that the 1919 race in the table was contested over 500 miles? Is something wrong here?
  • "The American Automobile Association governed the event" the sentence would work better as passive clauses.
  • "is presented"--> "has been presented"
  • link some combination of "art deco sterling silver"; the "art deco" should definitely be capitalised
  • "the base of the trophy itself" make it clear that this is the original trophy; furthermore, they have only moved onto the base relatively recently.
  • "Since 1960, the driver receives...and drinks a bottle of milk, a tradition started after the 1936 event." This sentence is a mess: tenses, meaning, clarity is all lacking.
  • "from a prize pool" unnecessary
  • "a hand-made quilt from Jeanetta Holder at the winners' photo shoot the day following the race" ??? this convoluted sentence provides absolutely no clarification
  • "his last, a span of two decades. He won his" --> "his last, winning his"
  • "his last (to date)" MOS:RELTIME
  • "Juan Pablo Montoya had to wait the longest time between his maiden victory at the 2000 race, and his second win followed 15 years later at the 2015 event" between distinguishes two items; only one (the maiden victory) is provided.
  • "Troy Ruttman is the youngest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 22 years and 80 days old when he won the 1952 event. Al Unser is the oldest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 47 years and 360 days old when he won the 1987 race." Unnecessary repetition: can be combined into one sentence (e.g. "TR and AU are the youngest and oldest 500 winners, triumphing at the age of 22 years and 80 days and 47 years and 360 days respectively")
  • "It has been won by 52 American drivers in 74 editions of the race" --> "52 American drivers have won 74 editions of the race"
  • " followed by British and Brazilian racers who have each achieved victory eight times amongst five and four drivers, respectively." convoluted, please rephrase.
  • "There have been seven countries who have produced only one winner" --> "Seven countries have produced only one winner"
  • "There have been two editions, the 1924 and 1941 races, where two drivers sharing a car ..." --> "In the 1924 and 1941 races, two drivers sharing a car..."

The tables themselves look good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regreful oppose on lead prose quality, thus violating criteria 1) and 2). Half a dozen issues remain from the first pass, and the first paragraph has only gotten more convoluted and stilted since then, with repetition and trivia taking up space useful information could use. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I have made more changes to the article but am not sure whether they are improvements or not EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Have worked on the lead and removed much of the existing trivia EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have colscopes for a few of the cells (Laps through KPH), but not the rest- add !scope=col to the other header cells as well. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of birds of Wallis and Futuna[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Oceanian bird list, did this a while ago but nominating now. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The thing that's the hardest to get for my plant FLCs is the image review, so:
  • Image review: the correct licenses are present, and I can't find any reason to distrust them (which is kind of what image reviewing comes down to). Correct coding (including alt text) is present, and image quality is good. They do a good job of illustrating the list. Pass.
  • Please consider reviewing the very short List of Saxifragales families when it hits FLC (coming soon). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well ... I better not ask for help with a specific list because I don't know how fast things are going to move (if at all). If you're interested in reviewing any of these, keep an eye out for "List of ... families". - Dank (push to talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Continuing:
  • First: I'm really impressed. I think a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to condense biological descriptions this much, while still including critical details and the right amount of interesting details as well. Well done. Better than anything I could do, I think.
  • There's no requirement to put this stuff in a table; that's up to your discretion, and personally, I think what you've got works fine without a table. But be aware that people generally only review what they feel comfortable with, and I've found that FLC reviewers are generaly more comfortable with tables.
    • Most "List of birds by country" lists aren't in tables, since the checklist for birds for any country that isn't a small archipelago is hundreds of species and managing these in a table would be absolutely ridiculous. I guess the lists for the smaller countries could be changed to tables, but I'd like to maintain consistency across the lists.
  • "a unique mound or burrow nests": I'm sympathetic ... you don't want to devote a disproportionate amount of text to any one bird, and that can make it really difficult to make yourself understood. Having said that ... I didn't understand this at all, until I went to the article and saw "a unique strategy of egg incubation in which it relies on environmental heat sources". I think you need to say a little more here.
    • Added some detail.
  • "short thick but pointed bills": "short thick-but-pointed bills" would be better, but I think I prefer something like "short thick bills ending in a sharp point".
    • Reworded.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. My image review is above.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A little depressing that this one hasn't picked up any more support. We don't have enough biology-aware reviewers at FLC ... but I suspect that some of the reviewers have just overlooked this. You might try reviewing a couple of FLCs; if that doesn't work or if you're not comfortable doing that, then (at the risk of sounding self-serving) come review List of early-diverging flowering plant families, and I'll see if I can drum up a review for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 10:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Forgot to @AryKun. - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon[edit]

  • Add |url-access=subscription to the references (Ref 9, 13, 23-31).
  • Use a consistent date format. Ref 32 has |date=4 March 2020 (dmy format) and |access-date=2022-05-04 (ymd format). Personally, I prefer dmy or mdy format but I'll leave that up to you.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Municipalities of Oaxaca[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a long pause, I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "more than any other state" - source?
  • Added the link to census which has a button to see the number of municipalities per state.
  • "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose" - don't get this bit. Does the constitution say this? That they can't function as intended? Huh?
    • This was added by Coyatoc who is more of an expert than I am, based on a spanish language text. I'm not sure if this user is still active but hopefully they will respond to this ping and provide a better answer than I can. They did try to explain it in the talk page. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It's the only entity" => "It is the only entity"
    • Done
  • "Merged with Miahuatlán in 1891-1942" - this would be better as "Merged with Miahuatlán from 1891 to 1942" (and same for all other such notes)
    • This is another wording issue from the original text, it is perhaps not known which date the merger took place but somewhere between those dates? Otherwise I don't know why the source includes a range, will as Coyatoc about this as well.
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • "more than any other state" in Mexico? Or globally?
    clarified
  • Why is the American date format used?
    • This is the format of all the other featured list pages, I assume it's because the majority of English reader would use it this way? It is by no means exclusively American. Mattximus (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "La Reforma" should sort with "R". Check the rest.
    • Having some troubles with the coding using data-sort-value="Reforma, La". Still working on a fix but if you know what syntax I got wrong please let me know! Mattximus (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 21:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Your work on lists of municipalities (shown on your userpage) is exemplary. I don't understand how this one got stalled ... let's un-stall it if we can.
  • Thanks!
  • "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose": I don't know what that means. How do they function, then? If you'd rather not say how at this point, then it would be better to omit this phrase here, and bring it up at the point where you want to explain it.
  • This was added by Coyatoc who I'm certain can explain what this means however in their absence I will remove this phrase as I agree that it makes no sense without context.
  • "It is the only entity in Mexico with this particular organization.": I don't know that that means. It's the only one with this many districts? With tax districts? With autonomous districts? With any districts at all?
  • Clarified wording.
  • "According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants": One option: "The 2020 Mexican Census reported it as the tenth most populated state, with 4,132,148 inhabitants." "recorded" or "listed" are possible ... present tense is also acceptable, but wouldn't be my choice.
  • Changed wording to an active voice: "Oaxaca is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants as of the 2020 Mexican census and the 5th largest by land area"
  • Agreed with Chris about the "merged with" wording in some of the notes ... there are options, but the current wording doesn't work, for instance in "Yutanduchi merged with San Pedro Teozacalco in 1937-1955". It's not clear what that's trying to say. "some time between 1937 and 1955" might work ... but perhaps that needs some explanation.
  • "tenth most ... 5th largest": Maybe there's a reason it's written this way, but I don't know why it's not "10th ... 5th" or "tenth ... fifth".
  • Easy fix. Both written out as per MOS.
  • "Municipalities in Oaxaca are administratively autonomous of the state according to the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico.[5] Every three years, citizens elect ...": Just a suggestion ... the rest of the paragraph is clearer than the first sentence (and perhaps easier to back up with sources, I don't know). If I were writing it, I'd probaby just drop most of the first sentence, and start with something like "As established by the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico, citizens elect ... every three years ...".
    • I changed it to "have some administrative autonomy from the state". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The largest municipality by population is Oaxaca City, with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is Santa Magdalena Jicotlán with 81 residents": Maybe "The census [you probably don't need "The 2020 census"] lists Oaxaca City as the largest municipality by population with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is". I think once you've established that this is what the census said, then it's not jarring to say "the smallest is" ... the readers will get what that means.
    • I added "listed in the census". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Just made a little tweak here.
  • That's most of what I saw. Again, fine work, on this one and all the others. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When I try to edit the page, I get "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors". I generally like to support as early in the process as I can, but I can't support with a template error ... see if you can find it. (One way to find which one it is: copy the references into userspace, and then toss them out one by one until you don't get the warning.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, all of that looks good. I've just got a few more tweaks to make; I don't see any barrier to supporting now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm aware there's been some disagreement over the captions in the gallery; I have a proposed solution, but it was a little too complicated to talk about it, so I just made the edit. Feel free to change or revert it ... but I think, if you revert my edit, you're going to continue to get pushback from reviewers until there's some kind of change to make it less wordy. I think it would be a good idea to at least keep the images in their own section, as I did, or create a subsection or draw a box around the images. After this edit, you probably don't need that "<onlyinclude>" code now, but I didn't remove it because I don't know what it's for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Btw, I don't recommend this, but I wouldn't be offended if you want to add back "fifth largest" or something to the fifth image caption. (Actually, I'm not offended by anything at FLC! It's just FLC.) But if the first caption says "largest" and the fifth caption says "fifth largest", there's no reason (that I can think of) to add "second largest" etc. to the other captions, and lots of reasons not to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • This final form looks good to me, I'm not super attached to these captions, but it is the standard of the other lists, so I'm happy leaving this as is.
  • Looking at the sort order in the second column, the only one that jumped out at me is Ixtepec, Oaxaca, with the official name "Ciudad Ixtepec". That should probably sort under "I" instead of "C".
    • I agree for entries like "la reforma" should sort as "R" not "L", but I can't seem to get the syntax to work! I tried using data-sort-value="Reforma, La" which has worked in the past but I don't know why it isn't working here. Any ideas what I got wrong? Below you seem ok with it, and I am too, but another editor requested this change.
  • The links I checked were all fine except for one: La Compañía is linking to a Chilean town. You might want to check some of the other links.
  • I checked List of cities in Mexico and a few other places to try to figure out how to sort, for instance, La Compañía ... so far, everything I'm seeing points to sorting this under "L". Works for me, but if I'm wrong, let me know.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review, and I'll check back after a source review is done). 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.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. You might have comments on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude and HAL333: ... Mattximus and I have both done some work on this one, you might want to check back to see if these changes work for you. This one was stalled for a while, it looks like. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One change: I added "or create a subsection or draw a box around the images" above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually ... now that I'm not committed to any one solution, it's probably better for me to self-revert the "Images" section, so I did. I still recommend picking one or more of those options. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just came across all your edits to this page and the rest of your comments, and I want to give you a big thank you, they are excellent. I might make a few tweaks but overall you've improved this list significantly. Please allow me some time to go through your remaining suggestions. Thanks again. I will try to review your list next. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I went through the comments, I think I've resolved or commented on everything. Please let me know if I missed anything! Thanks again!
I think you'll get pushback some day on the captions with "second largest", "third largest", etc., but we can work on that another day. I just changed "merged" to "was merged" in 5 rows. The link to the disambiguation page (La Compañía) will probably get fixed soon. I haven't examined the sources; I'll check back in after that gets done in the source review. Otherwise, you're good to go! - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you were asking about "data-sort" ... I used that a lot in, for instance, List of plant family names with etymologies ... check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, thx for the offer to review, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Morogris[edit]

  • ...more than any other state in Mexico - I saw the source you added and it is one of those where you have to manually choose what data to pull. To facilitate fact-checking for absolute statements of fact, could we perhaps use another source that explicitly mentions this? This one from FENAMM seems reliable. No need to delete the source you already have. My suggestion is this second one would strengthen the statement.
  • Agree with your suggestion, added the reference you mentioned, thanks!.
  • Several of the sources you use (the PDF ones) have tens of dozens of pages, yet you only cite the source as standalone. Could you please specify which pages in specific you used for the statements it is citing? Ref #2 has 183 pages, Ref #3 has 381, etc. I'm particularly concerned with "Estado de Oaxaca División Territorial de 1810 a 1995 (PDF)", which you used heavily. Are most facts concentrated on a few pages or are they spread out through the entire 145 pages? I'm happy to help with adding the hyperlinks for multiple pages if you need assistance.
  • Sorry for the very long delay Morogris, I was quite ill for the past few weeks and starting to feel better now. This is a good suggestion, if it is followed it would require the addition of around 50 new references, just versions of the same one with the page number included. The references are spread around the large document. Good news is that the pdf is searchable using the find function so it is indeed possible to do this, I just want to make sure that this is what you want as it will take quite a lot of time to add these separate references. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref #3 should have the parameter via=Biblioteca Legislativa de la Cámara de Diputados.
  • Done
  • Mexico Company Laws and Regulations Handbook. International Business Publications. 2009. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-4330-7030-3. - Maybe it is me, but the source is broken on my end. I get an Error 404. Not a requirement to FA status but if you have an alternative link that would be nice.
  • Looks like google books deleted this entry as a new edition has been published, but I can't link to that as the mage references might have changed. Nice catch, I'll just leave it as a book reference. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Date formats. I advise you fix the dates formats from "2021-01-27" (for example) to "January 27, 2021" for consistency. There are instances where you vary.
  • Nice catch, found 3 instances of this and changed as you advised. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is it for me. Amazing job putting this together! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for this excellent review and some great catches. I've worked on a few but will get back to the rest later. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apart from outstanding questions, I believe I've responded to or completed all recommendations. Please let me know if I missed anything! Mattximus (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Morogris. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Werner Herzog filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many will recognize Werner Herzog as the secondary villain from The Mandalorian, but he is much, much more. A prolific filmmaker, he is unlike any other. Watch him analyze a nihilistic penguin and observe firefighters in Kuwait as an alien visitor would. Or watch him get shot and barely react. Viewed by about 300,000 people yearly, this list and Herzog himself deserve featured-level quality. Cheers ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I'm not experienced with image copyright issues, but I think at least an additional tag of some kind is needed for File:WERNER HERZOG star.jpg. Also, I can't tell for certain what's going on with the license for File:WernerAndGalen.jpg; has Lena Herzog contacted anyone about this image?
  • "The Wild Blue Yonder" should sort under "Wild".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. Except as above, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • And just for you, I'll add number 7: you might or might not want to take a look at my current FLC. :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Dank: I removed both of the images and added one new one with a better license. Thanks for the comments. ~ HAL333 02:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Support. I see you put a lot of effort into this one, and it paid off. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. A great list, well-researched and well-written. I checked the formatting details and all looks fine. Excellent work! --Tone 09:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingsif[edit]

A nice looking list, my only comments are:

  • I think the refs could be improved. I'll take Letterboxd as a good source and that was my only concern there, but I mean in terms of the parameters. Could archive links be introduced; could wikilinks be introduced for the works (RogerEbert.com, Empire, etc.) as well as some authors (Roger Ebert, A. O. Scott, Peter Bradshaw at first glance, there's probably others); where it seems a film is being sourced to the work itself, I assume it is being sourced to an online directory, could this be made clearer?
  • Sorry, but I'll have to push back on all of these. I really dislike work and author links (except for books). Although they technically aren't, I regard them as duplicate links and of dubious help -- as a reader I never clicked on them. I don't really know what I can do for the sources with titles identical to the films. FLC reviewers were fine with them on all of my previous filmographies. However, I am a stickler for archiving refs but the archive bot isn't working for me.... which is very annoying. ~ HAL333 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have a separate "works cited" section, which is fine, I just wonder that due to the number of Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd citations, it might be simpler to just add the Herzog RT and Letterboxd filmographies to this section? I'd also like some clarity on what Prager is being generally cited for, or if it is just that one citation (at which point, for consistency in ref formatting, the "works cited" needs to go and the Prager ref needs to be made a citation like the rest).
  • I ended up just integrating the literary citation with the rest. ~ HAL333 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on the notes for the fiction short films table, would it be worth adding editor and sound columns, and checking them off like D/W/P?
  • Good point. Done.
  • The documentary short films table has the note "As himself" for Portrait Werner Herzog; this is presumably referring to his narration role? If so, can there be a note added for the other works marked as narration, as to whether he is narrating as himself or a character. If not referring to his narration role, there needs to be some better description - perhaps archive footage of Herzog is what you're referring to?
  • For the 2000 Years of Christianity entry, I think "of" should take the lowercase "o". Also, episode titles are typically in quotation marks and not italic. (i.e. "Christ and Demons in New Spain")
  • Done
  • Lowercase "e" for the "episodes" of the On Death Row entry
  • Done
  • Similar to the "As himself" comment above: the other work, film table has five actor entries with the note "As himself", and one "Cameo" - we must assume that the other 15 actor/narrator roles are not as himself and not cameos, but we should know what they are (character names? Should also get a character for the cameo, too) if possible
  • Ditto for the other work, television table - what are Herzog's characters for the four shows this goes unnoted. And are there any notes for Parks and Rec?
Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kentucky has had 5 different coaches win national championships, the most of any college basketball program. I have improved this list to (hopefully) match the excellence of the coaches that have led Big Blue Nation. This article is modeled on List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, with a few improvements such as link fixes and the removal of defunct and/or minor coaching awards in an attempt to limit the page size. I look forward to any improvements you may have! Note: I have another FLC however said list has support already, all existing comments have been addressed and no new comments have been made in two months. Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Probably should mention somewhere that the team relates to the University of Kentucky
  • "In 1921 they would join" - why not just "In 1921 they joined"
  • "11 years later" - always better not to start a sentence with a number written in digits if possible
  • " from the program's inaugural 1903–1904 season to the current year, 2022–23" - any reason why the formats of the two seasons are different?
  • "a retroactive national championships" - a (singular) championships (plural) doesn't sound right to me, unless it's an Americanism of which I am not aware......?
  • "Eklund is the teams all-time leader" => "Eklund is the team's all-time leader"
  • "he has had held" - grammar's a bit mangled here
  • Names of coaches in the table should sort based on surname, not forename
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop (currently some have one but some don't)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved all comments--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • These apply to both the 'key' tables and the main one:
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | align="center" | {{nts|1}} becomes !scope=row align="center" | {{nts|1}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Something is messed up with the images on the side- for me there's the key tables with white space next to them, then the line of images with a huge white space on the left of them, then the table. At no resolution can I get the images to be next to either table.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe I have fixed all of the issues present Newtothisedit (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1979/1980[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured list in the hope that it will join its three predecessors with the status. The list itself is fairly straightforward (although its lower reaches are shrouded in mystery), and I've tried to summarise the near-farcial changes to rankings and seedings proposed and reverted by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. Thanks for all improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the WPBSA voted to seed only two players into the last 16" - seeding them "into" the last 16 makes it sound like they got a bye to that round, is that the case? If so, that isn't my understanding of what seeding usually means......
  • "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded the first round" - should that be "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded in the first round".....?
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've reworded, to hopefully make it clear that the players were exempted to certain rounds; let me know if it needs further work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Before this, the defending champion was seeded first, and the previous year's runner-up second, for each tournament.[1][2][3 - maybe flip to "before this, for each tournament the defe..." As it reads a bit easier to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Players' performances in the previous three World Snooker Championships (1977, 1978 and 1979) - we've gone from speaking about 1977, we should prefix this para that we are talking about 79/80. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Potentially, but such an article would be close to a permastub. Seems to have been a fairly short-lived thing, which wasn't heard of after leading players got their way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hadn't really thought about it before, but to me a bye seems to be about a specific round, when there aren't enough players to fill all the slots. The Guardian source used has "the traditional eight exemptions ... revised the number of exemption to 16, number 1-8 to have byes and numbers 9-16 to meet eight qualifiers in the first round". I looked for other examples of "exemption", and found a few, e.g. "[Hallet was] exempted until the seventh qualifying round of the world championship" (The Guardian, 21 Jan 1997, p.22); "This year the top 16 'world ranked players, from an entry of 103, are exempted until the Sheffield stage" (The Daily Telegraph, 17 January 1985, p.33); "he succumbed to Rosa, whose world ranking of 119 exempted him to the ninth round" (The Independent, January 11, 1998). So I think I prefer to keep the current text, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prose
  • The table seems wierdly sorted - what makes certainly players higher than others for when they are the same points? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a mystery. It would seem logical to sort players on the same number of points based on their most recent performances, but this doesn't look to be the case for the ordering of Spencer and Thorburn, for example. No further details in sources as far as I'm aware. (In later years, of course, it got much more complicated, with merit points, half-points, A points, and frames won taken into account.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do we have a player who didn't play in any of the three events (in 24 and 26)? Also, why are they above players who did take part? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a mystery. Snooker Scene only listed players with points, so I have no idea where Turner would have got the details for lower places from. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • this has been the case for earlier season articles, following a comment that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." at the 1976/1977 discussion - or is the issue that I've placed it oddly in a different way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year[edit]

Notified: Rambo's Revenge, WikiProjects Sports, Awards, BBC, Lists

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has not been significantly updated since 2009, and has several inherent problems, including:

  1. Tables are using flags to describe people's place of birth, not their sporting nationality, in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG. This has been mentioned at the talkpage and WT:SPORTS with no response at either location
  2. It is awarded to the sportsperson aged 17 or under as of 1 January of that year- unsourced, as the source [6] from 2008 says it's for 16 or under. If the rules have been updated, newer sources are needed
  3. All winners to date have been British- unsourced and contradicts the fact that the table lists Sky Brown as Japanese. Not clear how British is being defined here
  4. The only two non-English recipients to win the award are Scottish tennis player Andy Murray, who won in 2004, and British-Japanese skateboarder Sky Brown, who won in 2021, and represents Great Britain whilst living in both Japan and the United States.- unsourced, Murray isn't mentioned anywhere, and the source doesn't describe Brown as non-British. This also contradicts the text highlighted in the point above
  5. Judging criteria- source is from 2008, if it's still the same criteria, can a newer source be used for this?
  6. Rationale of all people seems to violate MOS:QUOTE, as they're all excessive quotes
  7. Why are only the winners listed? BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has the top three, which seems better (and more encyclopedic than listing the rationale)

All in all, this list is now way short of the standard for a featured list, unless significant improvements are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - I agree with everything here, taking most concern with Brown's nationality issue, outdated sources and the availability of second and third-place nominations. Usually I'm not a fan of listing 2nd and 3rd's for awards as it can ruin lists like Liverpool POTY and The FA England Awards, but in this case the information seems freely available to make a complete 'encyclopaedic' list including the other nominees. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This list is rescuable. I have removed the flags and the comments on nationality and clarified the criteria for eligibility per the latest ceremony. The rationale section could be reworded or removed. A brief search shows that they didn't publically reveal the top three until recently but this could be added. I'll try to amend more when I have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1150757221"