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

  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]

List of World Chess Championships[edit]

Nominator(s): Remsense诉 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list—my first such nomination—because I'm fairly sure it is at the "nomination-ready" stage regarding the criteria, as it were. I expect a reasonable number of questions regarding the layout and scope, but I've gone over it multiple times and am pretty locked in. There's nowhere else that has all this information on one page—many books about the WCC are segmented in the 1970s (as far as I can tell)—the peak of US interest in the sport, with Fischer and whatnot. I wonder if additional dimensions could be added, namely time control, but there I fear getting crufty and falling down another research hole.

I've tried to keep the prose brief and specific, as to not be redundant with the already fairly good World Chess Championship—I've written what I think people needing the list may specifically need.

Anyway, big for a first nomination. I hope I've calculated this correctly...Remsense诉 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh

Thank you so much for putting the work in and nominating your first list @Remsense! Based on our interactions in the past, I'm confident you won't be offended by the criticisms the list receives and I very much hope this won't be your last.

A few notes I have so far;

  • Accessibility is an issue
    • You seem to have column scopes in the tables but no row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice.
    • Images need alt text which explains what the images are of
  • Add |url-access=subscription to the references to New York Times and to any other reference that requires a subscription
  • Perhaps an extra sentence to explain why the championship was not recognized. I see that it says the title was not at stake, was there a misunderstanding about who the current champion was? Was it an unrecognized event for the title?

I intend to review this more thoroughly later on, but I've had this open all day and find myself busy with other tasks. I wanted to give you a chance to work on a few things I had noticed before I go more in depth. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh, thank you for the points so far!
  • Fixed row scopes. I read the relevant pages on tables, and I thought row scopes were only necessary when there were row headers, as was seemingly a distinction in all the examples I saw. But now I see what they do.
  • Added |alt= text—I also supposed the captions were sufficient for screenreader purposes as to not potentially clutter the experience, but I do see how wanted information may have been missing.
  • Fixed the |url-access= parameters.
— Remsense诉 02:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grungaloo

Hey, great list! I have a few notes on prose and other things:

  • "A split from FIDE resulted in two competing titles" - Unclear what was split, what was the other organization that split off?
  • "the conceit of an international chess match or tournament did not occur until the 18th century," - Swap "conceit" for "idea", it's more accessible language.
  • "there had not yet been a match played for any formal title as such before 1886." - "as such" can be dropped.
  • 1935 - "13 cities", the footnote only lists 12 cities.
  • " series of Zonal and Interzonal tournaments would be held" - Zonal/Interzonal should probably be wikilinked (I had to look up what they were :D )
  • " each challenger had also been a Soviet citizen." - Each challenger was a Soviet citizen? It looks like they were all Soviet at the time of play, the way it's worded sounds like they may not have been citizens at the time of the match.
  • "Fischer never played another game under the auspices of FIDE." - "another game organized by the FIDE". Easier for general readers to understand.
  • "defeated Karpov in their rematch: over the following decade," - Colon should just be a full stop.
  • ", and Candidates tournaments, The 1998 event would be the first" - I think this should be a period before "The 1998"
  • "first in a series of singular single-elimination tournaments," - What's meant by a "singular" here? Maybe explain this a bit for clarity.
  • Unrecognized championship events - maybe explain what Edward Winter's research found, that contemporary sources don't refer to it as a world championship.

Great work all around, ping me if you have questions about what I've wrote! grungaloo (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grungaloo,
  • Rechecked the source, and corrected the typo—1935 was played in only 12 Dutch cities.
  • Unclear what was split—this one is tricky! The story is that the world champion Garry Kasparov and challenger Nigel Short both split from FIDE in the lead up to the '93 championship, forming the Professional Chess Association (PCA). The issue is that this organization only existed for three years from '93 to '96, after which there was no formal organization that oversaw what we call the "Classical title"—i.e. the champion who directly beat the extant champion. Kasparov beat Karpov in '85, and Kramnik beat Kasparov in 2000. However, there was absolutely a split title, and (this is OR) if they had to pick one, most people really saw Kasparov, then later Kramnik as the de facto World Champion during this time. I wasn't sure how to accurately express this without specifically naming Kasparov, which felt out of place given no one else is mentioned by name in the lead. I'll think about it.

I will be implementing your other prose suggestions shortly. Thank you very much. — Remsense诉 03:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I have now done so. Thank you again! — Remsense诉 05:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1986[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the latest in this series for your consideration. In this year another member of the most successful family in black music joins the list of chart-toppers..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon
  • Change Ref. to {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}

Support. That's all I got. -- EN-Jungwon 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support There are a couple of photos of Dionne Warwick that are taken closer to 1986, which you could consider using. Besides that, I don't see problems in the text, table or images. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPGuy2824: - I went with one from the 70s...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • To be clear, this is more a clarification question than an actual suggestion, but why not use this Janet Jackson image for the lead? The list does use other black-and-white images, but the quality of this particular image is not the greatest. Again, not saying that you need to change it, but I was just curious.
  • I am uncertain about "to date" in this part, (three times in his career to date). Per MOS:RELTIME, it is a word choice that is best avoided when possible. Would there a way to replace it with something else?

I only have two minor questions, and once they are both addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Great work as always. You really are an expert at making these types of lists. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review and kind words - both points addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by Elvis (2022 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost a year of expansion, I nominate this list since it is consistent to contemporary "List of accolades received by..." articles, many of which are WP:FLs. Chompy Ace 11:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • Wikilink Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller (they have a joint article)
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 18:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Support - Prose looks good, spot check references are good, well laid out. grungaloo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81

  • It's a good list. However, before I review it, there is a rule that states "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Your featured list nomination for the accolades list of The Martian has only garnered two supports. Next time, you should wait until the first nomination garners substantial support (preferably at least three of four explicit supports).
--Birdienest81talk 10:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Arsenal W.F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arsenal Women, formally Arsenal Ladies, is the women's team of Premier League giants Arsenal F.C. This is a list of their seasons since the club's formation in 1987; the club are the most successful domestic women's side in England.

It's worth noting that there is literally no wholesale coverage of women's football statistics from the 20th century as virtually every team was an amateur side; and those sides which were semi-professional or were affiliated with men's sides didn't last long. There are no books or dedicated databases focusing on Arsenal's history; unlike the men's side, which has 100s. The RSSSF has only recently updated its pages on women's football which allowed this list to flourish, and the stats that were missing from RSSSF could be filled with other sources such as Arsenal's offical match day programme from the 90s. I look forward to your comments :) Idiosincrático (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Arsenal Women Football Club is an English professional association football club based in Holloway, North London, it is the women's...." - this should be broken into two sentences
  • "which was founded in 1886." - source?
  • "Originally formed as Arsenal Ladies in 1987, the club became semi-professional in 2002 and later adopted its present name in 2017." - source?
  • "Arsenal are the only English side to win Europe's women's football competition, the UEFA Women's Champions League" - source?
  • "Arsenal are also the most successful team in the now-defunct Women's FA Community Shield." - source?
  • Why are the seasons which were played within one calendar year referred to as 20XX-YY? Surely if every game was played in say, 2016, then that's the 2016 season not the 2015-16 season.....?
I did this under the assumption that Arsenal played in the FA Cup in both years, after a quick look turns out not to be the case. I submitted an RMassist to move the incorrectly titled season. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These lists normally include the top goalscorer for each season. Appreciate this won't be available for early seasons, but any chance it could be included where known?
We had a short discussion on the talk page about including the known top scorers, but there isn't any sources available yet which list these players. @Cpg12: guessed that we could probably collate top scorers until the year 2000, but it would involve shoehorning an impractical amount of citations. Instead we opted to wait for a solid reference to emerge such as a book or data base in the near future. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Does not include results of amalgamated club Aylesbury, formally Aylesbury Harlequins and Islington" - what does this mean? This is literally the only mention of an "amalgamated club" and it isn't clear how it relates to Arsenal WFC.......
  • " The Women's FA Community Shield was formed" - I think maybe "created" would be a better word than "formed"
  • "2009, where it was renamed" => "2009, when it was renamed"
  • "Despite qualifying, the 2007 Women's FA Community Shield was not played" - this doesn't make sense - the Community Shield did not qualify for anything
  • "Between 2011 and 2017, the WSL played each league season annually," => "Between 2011 and 2017, the WSL played each league season within the calendar year"
  • "and ending May 2018" => "and ending in May 2018"
  • "The 2019–20 WSL season was regularly postponed" - what does "regularly postponed" mean? They postponed it every week?
  • Also, that note should be broken up into multiple sentences
  • That's what I got. Great to see some women's football content at FLC!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much for your review. I'd like to think I've addressed everything, but let me know if I've missed anthing. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies, I missed a couple of things in the lead which could also do with sourcing:
    • "Arsenal are the most successful women' s team in England" (also, remove that space between the apostrophe and the s)
    • "a record six times" and "a record ten times" (i.e. need a source that these are records) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done; I cited the League Cup one with RSSSF, they haven't updated it for Arsenal's record extending 2023 win, but they still held the record nonetheless, I'm sure they'll update it soon enough. Thanks again for your review. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of state presidents of the Indian National Congress[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list has been improved significantly. All your constructive inputs are welcome. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot Black Singles number ones of 1985[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's #43 in this series. In this particular year there was something of a changing of the diva guard at the top of the R&B singles chart, as both Aretha Franklin and Diana Ross, superstars since the mid-1960s, reached number one for the final time and Whitney Houston got there for the very first time. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon
  • Change ref 25 from https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-02-023 to https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-02-23
  • Change ref 61 from https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-11-025 to https://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs/1985-11-02
  • Archive ref 25 and 61

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 11:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Ref=Reference abbreviation in the table :)
  • Perhaps worth linking supergroup, for those who may be unfamiliar with the music term.
  • Another of the biggest stars of black music -- should it be another one of?
  • That's all I have. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pseud 14: - done the first two, the final one is alright as it stands I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MPGuy2824
Comment

I believe the sources and images have already been looked at. Support for promotion based on the prose too. Great work!--NØ 13:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of most-followed Twitch channels[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this topic has a lot of web traffic and is well sourced. I worked to improve this list after I came across it in AfD and have done a lot of research into verifying all the material on this list. Including translating non-English sources, finding articles in Newspapers, and replacing poor quality sources with reliable ones. Twitch streamers are influential people and this list is dynamic so there will be changes over time as streamers become more or less popular on the platform. This is my first list nomination and I will make it my top priority to respond and address any comments or concerns that come up. Thank you in advanced for everyone's time and comments they really do mean a lot to me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review
  • Sportskeeda is not a reliable source
  • The Versed is not a reliable source
  • One Esports it not a reliable source
  • Game Rant is not a reliable source
  • The SportsGrail is not a reliable source
  • Worldpopulationreview is not a reliable source
  • The book used for Citation 12 is not from a reputable publisher
  • Dot Esports is a questionable source for reliability
  • Formatting is inconsistent, especially the use of the quote and location parameters.

On sourcing alone, I'm leaning oppose. This list is far from ready. SounderBruce 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sportskeeda is not a reliable source
    • My bad on the Sportskeeda sources, I'll find replacements for those asap.
  • Worldpopulationreview is not a reliable source
    • I'll address this and the other sources later today
  • The book used for Citation 12 is not from a reputable publisher
    • Rosen Publishing Group appears to a reputable publisher, it's not a self publishing platform. Was there something here that I was missing?
  • Dot Esports is a questionable source for reliability
  • Formatting is inconsistent, especially the use of the quote and location parameters.
    • I can go back in fill those in.
Dr vulpes (Talk) 14:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
  • There's a random chunk of text which is not a sentence: "top fifty channels with the most followers on ." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of birds of Alberta[edit]

Nominator(s): grungaloo (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have recently updated list with current information, added photos, tidied up prose. I think it's an interesting (if somewhat niche) list! grungaloo (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • You could start with a short-ish description of Alberta, as you've done in List of birds of Bouvet Island.
  • The notes section is empty. Remove, unless some notes are added as this nomination proceeds.
  • Consider adding an external link to iNaturalist (or an equivalent site) filtered by Aves and Alberta.
  • The extinct and possibly extinct species could use individual references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description added, notes removed, extinct species cited. I didn't add a link to iNaturalist or eBird since I think per WP:ELNO #1 this would be a repeat of the information in the list. I did add a link to the Alberta Rare Bird Records Committee which manages the official list and provides additional information on some confirmed sightings. grungaloo (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
Comments
  • "The Canadian province of Alberta is a [...] province within Canada" - reads quite clunkily. Why not just "Alberta is a landlocked province within Canada"?
  • "and the state of Montana to the south" - specify that this is a US state. No guarantee that people in other parts of the world will realise this
  • " contributing to variety of bird species" => " contributing to the variety of bird species"
  • "The list is that of the Official List of the Birds of Alberta, produced by the Alberta Bird Record Committee, as of April 2023.[6] Of the 438 species on the list" - I would simplify this to "The Official List of the Birds of Alberta, produced by the Alberta Bird Record Committee, contains 438 species as of April 2023.[6] Of these......"
  • Merge that tiny second paragraph with the one below it
  • "with a fleshy cere." - is there an appropriate link for "cere"? I for one have no idea what this is.
  • "but have a fleshy cere above the upper mandible" - ah, there's the link! Move it to the earlier usage
  • "unlike Old World vultures, which find carcasses by sight, New World vultures have a good sense of smell with which they locate carcasses." - move the link to the first usage in the sentence, not the second
  • "Shrikes are passerine birds" - earlier you used a capital P on this word - which is correct?
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All fixed! Lowercase for passerine is correct so I've made sure that's all consistent. grungaloo (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fourth one doesn't seem to have been done.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My bad, should be good now, thanks! grungaloo (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EN-Jungwon

Images need alt text. -- EN-Jungwon 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added for all images. grungaloo (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of New Orleans Saints seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be up to featured list quality. This is my second NFL team seasons list and I will, as always, do my best to respond prompty to all comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ULPS
  • "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template
  • It feels somewhat clunky for During the team's worst season in 1980 the fans began to wear paper bags over their heads to games and started to call the team the "'Aints". The Saints did not have their first winning-season until 1987, their twenty-first season in the league. That same season, the Saints made their first playoff appearance. to be at the end, perhaps move it earlier in the paragraph?
  • When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise.
  • Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed.

Not really any major comments, nice work! ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Refs" is an abbreviation, so use the template – Done
  • It feels somewhat clunky... – I see what you've getting at. I've moved the sentences around a bit, let me know your thoughts.
  • When there are multiple coaches in a season, I think you should put a note next to their record specifying what exactly those numbers mean. IMO it's not completely clear that it's their record otherwise. – I feel as though it's contextually clear, how strongly do you feel about this?
  • Coaches are wikilinked after their first mention, not needed. – MOS:DUPLINK allows for re-linking within tables. I've kept it consistent within the list, but it is my personal preference to re-link within lists that I work on.
Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I had to move my reply and didn't ping (I think I submitted too soon on accident), I just wanted to send a ping your way to let you know I've responded @ULPS. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm cool with the changes, don't have any other gripes. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • "five months after the 89th United States Congress approved the merger of the NFL with the American Football League (AFL) in June of that year" - I think the last five words are redundant as most people can work out that five months prior to November was June
  • "In January 1967, the team was given the current "New Orleans Saints" name" => "In January 1967, the team was given the name "New Orleans Saints""
  • "Since the franchise's creation, it has been based in New Orleans." - I think "Throughout the franchise's history, it has always been based in New Orleans." would make the point clearer
  • Any way to make it so the next two sentences don't both start with "the team"?
  • "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and formerly Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021" => "originally Louisiana Superdome from 1975 to 2011 and later Mercedes-Benz Superdome from 2011 to 2021"
  • "Tom remained owner" => "He remained owner"
  • "Gayle has since" => "She has since"
  • "The Saints did not have their first winning-season" - no reason for that hyphen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fantastic feedback as always, thank you @ChrisTheDude! I've implemented all of your suggested changes and I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Atlanta Falcons seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my fourth National Football League FLC, coming after List of Baltimore Ravens seasons. The Atlanta Falcons are a mediocre team in the league, with some success coming in the last 20 years. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man im josh
  • "Ref" column should be "Refs" instead since some of the sections have multiple references.
  • Could you include notes for 2002 and 1970 to explain the change in conference/division. Preferably in the relevant column for these.
  • The note for 1982 should probably be included in the division & finish column instead of the reference column.
  • Source review passes. All references appear to be properly formatted and reliable for the content being cited.

Good stuff ULPS, even if you did take an article I was going to eventually complete! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I think I got everything! And you'll get every other season FL, don't worry 😉 ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shoot, I actually just found two issues @ULPS.
  • Ref 17, please add |url-access=subscription to the reference.
  • Ref 39, please add a published date
I won't withdraw my support because I'm confident you'll get these fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed all :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by SounderBruce
  • "NFL Commissioner" should be uncapped per MOS:JOBTITLE.
  • The expansion team sentence is rather short and could be merged upstream; the link to 1966 should also be expanded out (perhaps to "1966 season") to avoid a MOS:EGG situation.
  • I would switch the ordering of the paragraph to put the ownership history before the stadiums to keep mentions of Smith closer together.
    • At the same time, I think expanding a bit on the different stadiums would be helpful to readers.
  • "The Falcons made it to two" could be "The Falcons have appeared in two" to avoid a "to two" situation.
  • "losing both to" implies that both losses were to the Broncos.
  • An explanation of which divisions the Falcons played in could help readers as well.
  • Nothing to say about the table, except that I never knew the NFL had a Coastal Division. SounderBruce 07:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the beginning of the NFL, six different "MVP awards" have been handed out. Six players for the Green Bay Packers have won one of these MVP awards a total of 29 times. Additionally, three players have won a total of four Super Bowl MVP awards. List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award covers these award winners. Thank you for your time reviewing this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from RunningTiger123
I wasn't trying to state that just because the other list exists, this one must too. I was merely pointing to a past discussion where consensus was clear not to delete a list (one that went on to be featured) that resembles the size and scope of this list, so it may be of interest to you. In that discussion, the thing that changed most minds was the inclusion of the prose, which wouldn't be appropriate in a larger, summary article (this article has 1,145 words of readable prose that covers the history and reasoning for each MVP award). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Setting aside the issue above, here are other changes that should be made:

  • Pete Rozelle misspelled in lead
  • Image and references columns should not be sortable
  • Sort keys need to be specified for "Super Bowl (Season)" column so Roman numerals sort in numerical order
  • Favre did not win Jim Thorpe Trophy in 1997

Assuming these are fixed, I'm neutral on this list's promotion (support based on formatting and style, oppose because I'm still unconvinced by the sources that this warrants a stand-alone list instead of inclusion in the main article – so we'll split the difference). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RunningTiger123, I have addressed all four of the items you identified. Cheers « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 8[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I worked on this article for a while, adding in the missing refs and fixing every issue I could find. I also brought the article through a peer review back in late October-early November, where the few issues raised were addressed. While this article may be unique in that it falls under the strict Wikipedia:Days of the year consensus (link to guidelines here) which differs from the standard FL-guidelines in some regards (particularly for the formatting/structure of the lede), I don't think this should preclude a FL-nomination for this or any other DOY article. Besides, once the first DOY article successfully passes FLN, it would pave the way for how the other 364 DOY articles can eventually also get FL status. I recognize this is a significant challenge but I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to get this article, February 8, its article-quality recognition. Best, Dan the Animator 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by commment
  • Can you expand the lead? A lead of literally just one sentence isn't really appropriate for a FL...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ChrisTheDude: I completely agree though unfortunately because of the wikiproject's strict guidelines (which are based on this article template), I can't change the lead without changing the consensus (I tried to diverge from the template before on an issue much more minor than this and got reverted within a few hours for it). That said, I started yet another discussion on the wikiproject page but until there's a consensus there, which might not even happen, there's not much I'll be able to do. Highly encourage taking part in that discussion though to help move things forward (and maybe convince the editors involved in the wikiproject to consider changing the template). Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not going to put a flat-out "oppose" here but I don't feel that I can support an article with a lead of literally just one sentence for FL status. Sorry about that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: that's alright and honestly agree with your concerns. Do you have any suggestions though how I might successfully get around the issue of the lede? The discussion I opened has been open for over a week now and there seems to be a strong consensus against changing the size/formatting of DOY ledes. I'm thinking the only way forward given this might be to create a narrow exception to WP:FLCR for DOY articles where there current lede could be retained and the article could successfully complete the FLN process. The only policies I can think of though to back up this sort of workaround is Wikipedia:IGNORE and maybe WP:COMMON, which is as weak as it gets imo. I'm not an expert of all the WP policies so maybe if there's one I'm missing that could help in a case like this, please let me know. In any case, thanks for replying and no worries if you can't/don't want to help. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Btw Hey man im josh, feel free to help with the above too if you can/are willing. The issue of the lede is a tough one to say the least but the only way to get past it is to get as many editors voices/help on it as possible. Dan the Animator 04:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comments by Hey man im josh
  • Inconsistent date formats
    • I looked through the article but I couldn't see any differing date formatting. In the lede & events section, the MDY formatting is used consistently (to match the title yk). The rest of the article follows the DOY project guidelines consistently (for how the birth/death year are displayed, which are never shown as complete dates per the DOY template). Maybe I misread your suggestion?
  • A number of unreliable sources used
    • I went through and took out/replaced as many as I could find but not sure if I got all of them. Let me know if there's any unreliable refs left and I'll fix them best I can.
  • The lead desperately needs to be expanded
    • see my reply above

Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: many thanks for the suggestions and apologies for not replying sooner! Feel free to ping me back when you get a chance to take another look at the article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of Seattle Mariners seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The third in a series of Seattle sports team season lists, freshly expanded and cleaned up in the hours since my last list passed its review. The Mariners are the only MLB team to not make the World Series and only recently ended a record playoff drought; they are the ultimate underdogs and the subject of a multi-hour YouTube documentary that resonated with a lot of people. This list's format is inspired by existing (but very old) baseball season FLs, with some modern tweaks borrowed from other sports FLs (particularly the NFL's). SounderBruce 07:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Image captions both need a full stop
    • Fixed.
  • "the 21-year playoff drought was the longest in the North American major sports leagues" - is it still?
    • No longer, added some clarifications.
  • "After the Washington Nationals won a National League title in 2019" => "After the Washington Nationals won the National League title in 2019" (existing wording could be taken to mean that multiple NL titles were on offer in 2019)
    • Fixed.
  • " A players strike was called" => " A players' strike was called" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 2; link MLB.com
  • Ref 9, 29; is the author Tom Verducci
  • Ref 12; is the author Bob Hohler
  • Ref 13; is the author Murray Chass
  • Ref 19, 21, 36; is the author Ryan Divish
  • Ref 26, 27; is the author Tracy Ringolsby
  • Ref 32; is the author Ross Newhan
  • Archive all the references
  • In the "Key to colors", I suggest removing World Series champions and American League champions since they are not used at all in the article. If they are required in the future then they can be added back. Same with WS MVP – World Series Most Valuable Player Award in "Key to awards".

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 11:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: Author links have been added and citations archived. The key is meant to be consistent across all MLB lists, so I don't think their removal is necessary; other sports FLs have similar unused key items. SounderBruce 19:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image review
  • Both images are properly licensed and have alt text, so the image review passes. Nice work on the article. Support. -- ZooBlazer 22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of constituencies of the Tripura Legislative Assembly[edit]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've expanded the lead, and the history section, and added some refs, and I think it meets the FL-criteria now. This is my first FL nomination and I hope to quickly incorporate suggestions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • Per MOS:COLOR, you cannot use colour alone in the table to indicate something -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed by adding a column with the information. I don't think that the background coloring is needed now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Main article" link at the top looks really odd. Just link the words in the first sentence
  • Merge the first two mega-short paragraphs of the lead
  • " Indian state of Tripura, in Northeast India" - the word "Indian" is redundant given that you state it is in Northeast India, so what other nationality could it be?
  • "unless dissolved earlier" => "unless it is dissolved earlier"
  • Put the wikilink on the whole of "2023 elections", not just on the date
  • Only one sentence is sourced in the lead
  • The lead seems a little brief. Could you add something about the SC/ST thing?
  • In the first table, why was the "Government Of Union Territories Act, 1963" apparently not passed until 1967?
  • In that same table, why are some acts in italics and others not?
  • In that same table, you use "and" between the dates on the 1993 row but not on the row below
  • In that same table, no ref against 2023 on the last row
  • You use "SC" and "ST" as headers, but don't write them out in full until the next section
  • "Following is the list of the constituencies" => "The following is a list of the constituencies"
  • "At present, 10 constituencies are reserved for the candidates" => "At present, 10 constituencies are reserved for candidates"
  • "and 20 are reserved for the candidates" => "and 20 are reserved for candidates"
  • Why does that sentence end with a colon?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Main article" link at the top looks really odd. Just link the words in the first sentence Done
    Merge the first two mega-short paragraphs of the lead Done
    " Indian state of Tripura, in Northeast India" - the word "Indian" is redundant given that you state it is in Northeast India, so what other nationality could it be? Done
    "unless dissolved earlier" => "unless it is dissolved earlier" Done
    Put the wikilink on the whole of "2023 elections", not just on the date Done
    Only one sentence is sourced in the lead The current version has a few more refs. There are a couple of more sentences that need refs, since they aren't a synopsis of something presented later in the text.
    The lead seems a little brief. Could you add something about the SC/ST thing? Done
    In the first table, why was the "Government Of Union Territories Act, 1963" apparently not passed until 1967? An error on my part. The act was passed in 1963, but the next elections were in 1967.
    In that same table, why are some acts in italics and others not? Done
    In that same table, you use "and" between the dates on the 1993 row but not on the row below Done
    In that same table, no ref against 2023 on the last row Done
    You use "SC" and "ST" as headers, but don't write them out in full until the next section This shouldn't be a problem with the addition of the new paragraph in the lead
    "Following is the list of the constituencies" => "The following is a list of the constituencies" Done
    "At present, 10 constituencies are reserved for the candidates" => "At present, 10 constituencies are reserved for candidates" Done
    "and 20 are reserved for the candidates" => "and 20 are reserved for candidates" Done
    Why does that sentence end with a colon? Fixed
    Fixed all. In the lead I've added citations where the information isn't present later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by RunningTiger123
  • "seat of the Legislative Assembly" – don't capitalize "legislative assembly" here since it is used as a general term
    • Same for "Electoral college" later
  • Acts shouldn't be italicized (can't find a specific MOS section for this, but other articles typically don't italicize and other formats such as MLA don't do it)
  • "Government Of Union Territories Act" – "of" should be lowercase
  • Effect column should not be sortable since spellings are arbitrary
  • Last row in history table does not sort correctly in the elections column

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done all except for removing the italics. There isn't a specific section for India, but for Australia the MOS says to italicize the title of acts. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're going by what other countries do, the UK (which probably has a more direct relationship to Indian law) uses non-italicized font (see here, p. 23). A quick search through Category:Indian legislation supports this. But I'll let it be since the MOS is unclear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been 14 years since it was last nominated. The nomination only failed at the time because of the arbitrary ruling that seven items was not enough to constitute a valid content fork. However, the combination of the Vikings now having had 10 head coaches and that also no longer being a rule means it should pass easily this time. All of the Featured List criteria are satisfied. I look forward to seeing this pass as an FL soon. – PeeJay 17:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "There have been ten head coaches in the history of the franchise" vs "Les Steckel has the worst winning percentage of the franchise's nine head coaches".......?
    • Good spot, thanks.
  • "On January 15, 2014, the Vikings appointed [....] and served...." - the Vikings did not serve
    • Reworded.
  • "Two days after he won the Super Bowl as the Los Angeles Rams" - wikilink both Super Bowl and Rams
    • Reworded and linked.
  • "making Grant the first head coach to lead teams to four Super Bowls, despite never winning one." - slightly vague wording here - was he the first HC to lead teams to four Super Bowls, or the first to lead teams to four Super Bowls but not win any of them?
    • It's the former. I'll work on rewording this.
  • "the team had their worst season to date, only managing to win three of their 16 games" - earlier you mentioned a season when they only won two games, surely that is worse?
    • The season when they won two games had fewer games in total, so the winning percentage was higher. I've clarified that the three-win season is their worst by win percentage.
      • Unless my long-ago A-level maths is massively failing me, 2 wins out of 14 games is a 14.3% winning percentage, and 3 wins out of 16 games is 18.8%, so the former is definitely worse......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Nope, you're right. For some reason, I thought it was 2 wins in a 12 game season, and that still isn't better. I think the fact we were actually going for was that the three-win season was the worst in a 16-game campaign. Now that the season is 17 games long (why?!), I might just dispense with that stat. – PeeJay 21:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "making Green the first African-American head coach" - in the lead African American did not have a hyphen.......?
    • Removed hyphen.
  • "Since Childress' first season in charge, the Vikings regular season record" => "After Childress' first season in charge, the Vikings' regular season record"
    • Reworded.
  • "twice in two consecutive years" - the word "two" is redundant here
    • Reworded.
  • Philadelphia Eagles is linked twice in the lead
    • Fixed.
  • "Last" column doesn't sort correctly
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Cheers Chris. I'm working on fixes for the last two things. – PeeJay 11:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed all your concerns now. – PeeJay 19:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey man im josh

Haven't done a deep dive just yet, but I have some comments:

  • List needs work to meet accessibility needs. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice.
    • Done.
  • Images need alt text
    • Done.
  • What verifies the number of division titles?
    • The Pro-Football-Reference link for each coach includes a season-by-season table with a column titled "Rank", which shows the team's position in their division under the coach each year.
  • Should the yrs column be changed to season instead? I think it makes more sense because of cases like Mike Zimmer, who was fired on January 10, 2022, and coached a game the day before, but is listed as having coached until 2021.
    • Done.
  • I think there should be a win % column for the playoffs as well, given that there's one for the regular season. (Personal note: It looks like other head coach lists are inconsistent, with 7 of the 22 promoted head coach lists including the playoff win % column, I think I may have to fix that some day.)
    • Done. I've also added a set of columns giving each coach's overall record (regular season plus playoffs).
  • For the "Elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a coach and spent entire NFL head coaching career with the Vikings" coaches, you should a single symbol instead of two. I recommend removing the asterisk and just using the dagger
    • Since this is a combination of two other criteria, I think it's important to retain both symbols, especially since both symbols are already used for their own purposes.
  • This is very minor, but I think one of the two "Elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame", background colours should be changed to make them a bit more different (not two shades of yellowish)
    • I'm not sure what this should be changed to. What do other articles use?

It's on the right track and I'm glad to see you nominated this PeeJay! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. I've responded as best I can to your comments. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. – PeeJay 19:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @PeeJay, I'm sorry for my delayed response, I wasn't aware you had responded to me, please ping me next time for a faster response. I think that the alt text for the images needs work. One example is the alt text for Jerry Burns, which reads "A white man in a suit and tie, holding a piece of paper", but the alt text would be better if it were Jerry Burns in a suit and tie, holding a piece of paper. You use similarly phrased alt text on all of the images in the table and I think the alt text should just use the person's name instead. The alt text is fine otherwise. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, I've fixed the alt text. I also raised some questions above regarding the colours and symbols used in the list key. Thanks for helping to clean up the references, by the way. – PeeJay 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeeJay: One of the yellows is fairly commonly used, but I think you may just need to pick a different colour, as I'm not sure there's a lot of situations where coaches were elected into the hall as a player. It's a minor knit pick, so I'm not stuck on it. I'll support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the second Inkigayo winners list. This list is based on the 2015 list which is a featured list. -- EN-Jungwon 03:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "Nine artists ranked more than one single on the chart in 2016" => "Nine artists had more than one number one in 2016"
  • "The three groups went on to rank another single on the chart in 2016." => "The three groups all went on to have another number one in 2016."
  • "Both groups ranked number one for six weeks each" => "Both groups ranked number one for six weeks"
  • "I.O.I formed through the first season of the survival reality show Produce 101, achieved" => "I.O.I, formed through the first season of the survival reality show Produce 101, achieved" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude done. Thanks again. -- EN-Jungwon 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)sReply[reply]
Image review

Otherwise, image placement, licence and ALT text are passable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus the file has already been reviewed by a reviewer on commons, so is this still an issue? -- EN-Jungwon 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think that the source link should work, so that folks can check whether it is accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I still feel like the whole point of an image review is to let people know that the image does have an acceptable license. I have gone ahead and changed the image to one with a live source. One more thing. I used imagmap for the images of groups to link to individual artists Wikipedia articles. Is this allowed/acceptable or is there a specific policy regarding this? Will this cause any accessibility issues? -- EN-Jungwon 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know much about accessibility issues. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility? I don't think there is a particular issue with the imagemap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am re-nominating this for a featured list because the last nomination yielded no results. Although all issues have been addressed in a timely manner, please feel free to provide your constructive inputs, and I will do my best to resolve them. Much Thanks 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose – I hate to oppose a FLC so quickly, but the list has fundamental issues with sourcing and formatting. Many tables do not have their own sources and would seem to all be sourced from worldstatesmen.org, which was deprecated in a 2020 RfC. The lead also has large unsourced sections. The tables have wildly differing formats – for instance, table headings are included in some, omitted from others, and incorrectly formatted as rows in some cases. Each table should be structured the same way per WP:FLCR #1 ("professional standards of writing" include consistency to me, as different formats look sloppy) and #5a ("suitable use of text layout, formatting, [and] tables"). Other immediate issues include links in section headings (violates MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS), incorrect sorting (names in sortable tables should sort by last name), and missing alt text for images. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello @RunningTiger123, thanks for you comments. I've included references in the lead section. Regarding the tables, as you can see, there are a large number of them in this list. Could you please specify which table requires correction? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 04:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For starters, by my count, the tables for Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Puducherry, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh lack references. (That would be over half of the states/union territories listed.) Other tables with sources seem questionable – for instance, the Andhra State Act 1953 does not provide information about the leaders who came after its passage. Formatting also needs to be fixed in essentially every table because they all vary so much and need to conform to a single standard. Things to consider:
    • Should the tables have a visible header or not? (They need some form of header in every case; it can just be set for screen readers only.)
    • Should consecutive terms following different elections be combined into one cell or split into separate rows?
    • Should references go in the table header or in a column heading?
    • In my opinion, it seems fine to have a reference attached to the table header. Still, I would like to know your view, if using 'blank' instead of 'No Image Available' is going to cause any trouble
    • Should cells use "no image available" or just be left blank?
    • For all of the items listed here, my point is solely that there needs to be consistency. It doesn't matter which approach you choose as long as you do it for every table. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Hello @RunningTiger123, I have restructured the entire list with a new format and have utilized mostly different sources for each table. Please take a moment to review it and let me know if it's good to proceed. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The list still needs work but I think there's at least a clear sense of what a "standard" table looks like, so I'll offer a re-assessment within a few days. One quick note: The table caption should use proper formatting, not just a row spanning all columns at the top. See H:TC. (I was unclear about this by referring to captions as headers; my mistake.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you so much for the H:TC part. Corrections have been made. I will await your further notes. Thanks again. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And so on. There's even more I could point out, but I think I've made my point for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All your suggestions noted. Also, allow me couple days to make corrections recommended by you. Much thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 03:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-review of the article after changes:

  • "3 December, 2023" – no comma when using day-month-year format
 Fixed
  • Link Himachal Pradesh like the other states
 Fixed
 Fixed
  • No reason to add the abbreviation "UTs" if it's not used elsewhere – avoids awkward use of parentheses back-to-back
 Fixed
  • "twenty-eight states and three union territories" → "twenty-eight states and of three union territories" – this clarifies that "each" earlier in the line doesn't apply to the union territories as there are more than three of them
 Fixed
  • "state level" should not be hyphenated
 Fixed
  • Citation needed for last sentence of second lead paragraph
 Fixed
  • "Okram Ibobi Singh ... has been the longest-serving chief minister from the INC." – but the tables show Gegong Apang served longer?
 Fixed
  • "longest serving Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh" – any reason why this state is more relevant than the others?
 DoneOther states included like Delhi, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh as well.
  • All tables: Names should sort by surname/family name
 Fixed
  • All tables: Portrait columns should not be sortable
 Fixed
  • All tables: Since the term in office header spans three columns, sorting is only applied to the first column (start of term), and it is not possible to sort by the other two. It might be worth splitting into "Start of term", "End of term", and "Span" columns (or similar) if you want to be able to use all three in sorting. This is an optional change.
Allow the list stick to its existing state please, if it's okay.
  • All tables: Ordinals should have specified sort values so they sort in numeric order instead of alphabetical order (e.g., sort value for "First" should be "1"). Even ordinals in numeric form (e.g., "12th") need this since I suspect the MediaWiki software will not recognize that as a number.
 Fixed
  • All tables: Add row scopes (see PresN's accessibility reviews throughout WP:FLC for more)
 Fixed
  • Andhra Pradesh: Time span for Marri Chenna Reddy is incorrect (probably a bad parameter)
 Fixed
  • Arunachal Pradesh: Add table caption; add sorting; why is Apang's term split into four "subterms" (not supported by source)? I think they should use a single start and end date while keeping separate rows for the assembly column. If they are to be listed this way, each subterm should have its own time span (same for Tuki)
 Done
  • Assam: Add table caption; address Bordoloi in same way as Apang above
 Done
  • Bihar: Use rowspan=2 instead of repeating name, portrait, constituency columns (like you do in other tables); fix format for Rai's start date; use years and days for Mishra's second term
 Fixed
  • Chhattisgarh: Add table caption
 Done
  • Delhi: Add table captions; "Office Abolished, 1956–93" is not an appropriate table caption; address Dikshit in same way as Apang
 Fixed Table caption added

That's plenty to start with. I would highly suggest you look for similar issues in other tables – in particular, confirm that all tables have captions, row scopes, and correct sorting, and that all tables address the "subterm" issue (in essence, each start and end date should have a span in years/days that is associated with only those dates, whether those dates covers all subterms or just one – let me know if more clarification is needed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @RunningTiger123, I have endeavored to address all the issues that were raised. Could you please review it and advise on any further requirements. Thank you.
Sorry for the delay, didn't get a ping (I think you have to sign your edit for it to ping a user). From the edits above, the remaining issues are:
  • Row scopes still missing as best as I can tell
  • Incorrect name sorting for third table for Andhra Pradesh
  • Tuki's time span should be split in two, like Apang
  • Incorrect name sorting for Assam and for Bihar
I made several other edits to fix small typos and the like. I can look further once these tables are done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments

Some other points not to do with table formatting:

  • "As of 3 Dec, 2023," - the date should be written properly i.e. month not abbreviated
  • "is in power in 3 states" - numbers lower than ten should be written as words
  • Also, in that sentence it should be "the three states of....."
  • "In Tamil Nadu, Bihar & Jharkhand" - "and" should be written as a word
  • "Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Janata Dal (United) & Jharkhand Mukti Morcha respectively" - and here too
  • "most of the States" - no reason for capital S on states
  • "who served as the chief minister of Delhi held the office" - last three words are not needed
  • "who was chief minister of Manipur for 15 years and 11 days" / "served as chief minister of Assam for 15 years, 6 days" - why the different format? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @ChrisTheDude all  Done. Please have a look. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 11:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @ChrisTheDude Could you please review the list and suggest any additional corrections if needed? Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has the stuff RunningTiger123 raised been addressed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: The issues I've raised seemed to have been broadly addressed with smaller cleanup still needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Kids and Family Programming[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surprising nobody, I've worked on another GLAAD-related list. A much more recent addition to the GLAAD Media Awards, this category focuses on programmes made for younger audiences that feature LGBT themes and topics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ChrisTheDude Comments[edit]

  • "Concerning the invention of this category" - I think maybe "creation" rather than "invention" here
    • Done.
  • "arguing about the importance of younger indiviausl" - last word is a bit jumbled :-)
    • "jumbled". It was a straight up crime scene.
  • "in 2020 where Hulu's The Bravest Knight and Disney+'s won" - something missing after "Disney+'s"
    • Added.
  • "and again the following year in 20221" - good to get a prediction of what will win 18000 years in the future :-) But, in seriousness, given that you said "the following year" I don't think you need to state the year at all
    • I'm sorry, but I couldn't stop laughing for almost 1 minute; XD. Fixed it.
  • "the award was split into an Animated and Live Action category" => "the award was split into Animated and Live Action categories"
  • "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which documentaries will be nominated" - sudden mention of documentaries? Copy and paste issue?
    • Oops. Me? Copypaste from my previous work? Naur, I'd never do that...
  • "Since its inception, the award has been given to 9 programmes" => "Since its inception, the award has been given to nine programmes" Also, I may be wrong, being British, but isn't it spelt "programs" in the States?
    • Yeah, I think it's only when you have something like 20 and higher that digits rather than words are used for numbers. I'm a non-native speaker, so I often mix different spelling, but yes, you're right. Changed it.
  • "The following networks received" - I would say "The following networks have received" so it doesn't read like the awards have ended
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon[edit]

  • Use a consistent date format in the references
    • Done.
  • Add a short description. I went through some of your other nominations related to GLAAD and noticed that some lists have no short description (no {{Short description}} template), some have intentionally no description ({{Short description|none}}) and some lists have short descriptions.
    • Done. Hopefully the description is acceptable.
  • Is there a need for the "Networks" subsection heading? I suggest removing the heading for now and in the future if a program receives more than one award then create two sections for "Networks" and "Programs".
    • Yeah, I guess when there's not even 1 show to have won twice, it's somewhat unnecessary.
  • Ref 1 and 5 redirect to the same page. Merge them. Or maybe the url status can be changed to dead?

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there has been a misunderstanding with the third point. I was asking for the heading to be removed. Not the whole section. Was this intentional? -- EN-Jungwon 06:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I think I realize. Still, as no shows have won twice or more, it seems a bit odd to have the section just for the networks. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 10:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Great work with this list, as you always do with the GLAAD Awards series. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

Version reviewed

Formatting
  • Fn 7 - doesn't include a publisher parameter, as you did with other citations i.e. Deadline and Hollywood Reporter. As a matter of consistency, worth adding Penske Media too.
  • Done.
  • Fn 12 - Worth linking Dotdash Meredith, since you've linked every instance of the publisher with a wiki article.
  • Done.
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles should be written in either sentence or title case regardless of how they appear in the article. This should be consistent, since it looks like you've wrote them in Title Case. Fn 2 and Fn 12 should be written similar then.
  • Done.
Reliability
  • The citations seem to be of high quality with such information on the subject. The news sources in question seems to be professional and well-circulated sites/publications.
Verifiability
  • Fn 2 - checks out
  • Fn 5 - I can't seem to find any mention of Shareholders Circle members, are they considered GLAAD board or members?
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the comments and support. Regarding this issue, it turns out the source was updated recently. The archived link does reference the shareholders circle, so I've changed the url status to "dead". --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah that makes sense to me now, and I can confirm from the archive link that it checks out.
  • Fn 9 - checks out
  • Fn 13 - checks out
  • Fn 17 - checks out

Overall, mostly very minor concerns. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments and making the formatting changes. This passes source review. On a separate note, If you have spare time, I was wondering if you'd be willing to provide some feedback on my current FAC. It's a short BLP article, and hopefully not too long to read. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster[edit]

Nominator(s): ZooBlazer 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my third NBA related FLC and my second one for the Portland Trail Blazers. I noticed that there was currently only one featured list for a team's all-time roster (Charlotte Hornets all-time roster), so I figured I would try to get a second one. ZooBlazer 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "The franchise was founded in the 1970–71 NBA season" - surely it was founded before that season?
  • "The team has qualified for the playoffs in 37 of their 54 season existence" - I don't think this is quite right grammatically. I would suggest "The team has qualified for the playoffs in 37 of their 54 seasons in the NBA"
  • "Two Hall of Fame coaches, Wilkens and Jack Ramsay, have patrolled the sidelines for the Blazers, and two others, Mike Schuler and Mike Dunleavy, have won the NBA Coach of the Year award with the team" - is this relevant? The article is about the team's players, not coaches
  • Lillard image caption is a complete sentence so it needs a full stop
  • Colour and bold text to indicate something (in this case stats leader) doesn't meet accessibility requirements, as far as I am aware
  • Why do some players have a number in brackets after their name?
  • The tooltip for the "from" column says "School or country origin", but for those who came from overseas it doesn't list a country, it lists a team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I've addressed everything besides the color/bold for stat leaders. If the bold/color can't be used, is there something else that can be done? I think stat leaders are notable for this article. As for the numbers next to player names, those are the retired numbers. I didn't even realize it was missing from the key, so I added it. ZooBlazer 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Re: stats leader, yes, it's definitely worth noting but I don't think using colour + bold passes accessibility guidelines. I think you need to use another symbol...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I changed it to a symbol, but I'm not sure if there's a way to make the key look better or not. I had to use a separate wikitable because if I changed the template, I'd mess up the other 29 teams and I don't have the time to go through all of them to manually update the stats leaders to the symbol. ZooBlazer 22:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @You didn't have to remove the colour, you could have left that in....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I can re-add that, but the bold/color combo is what's part of the template, so the key still looks funky because of the extra table since I'm still swapping the bold for the symbol. ZooBlazer 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe we need input from an accessibility expert on whether colour + bold is acceptable as an indicator of something.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN You helped out with the accessibility review on one of my previous FLCs. Are you able to help us out with this? ZooBlazer 20:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just had another thought on the "from" column. Why does it show the college for players who were not drafted by Portland? By heading the column "from", it gives the impression (to me at least) that the player joined Portland from that college, but in the case of Detlef Schrempf, he joined Portland from the Seattle SuperSonics at the age of 36 and had been out of college for 14 years. I am no expert on basketball or even US sports in general, but this seems a bit odd to me now I think about it - surely it would be more relevant to show the team which the player actually joined Portland from (or alternatively give the column a different header).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude It's reflective of how official NBA rosters are listed. As far as I've ever seen, they've listed the college or the international team they were last on before being drafted. Maybe instead of "from" it should be changed to pre-draft team" like it is here? Just not sure if that would be too long and mess up formatting. Or keep "from", but change the tooltip or add an efn to say pre-draft team? ZooBlazer 17:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ok, that's just weird (to me, at any rate). To me it doesn't seem to make much sense to mention the college team that someone like Schrempf played for more than a decade before he joined Portland in preference to the NBA team he actually joined Portland from. I would support the change to "pre-draft team" of "drafted to NBA from" to make it less confusing to readers. There's plenty of room in the column header for either option.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of primates[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the final monkey FLC, everyone, #6 in the order Primates and #35 overall for mammals for our perpetual series: the order capstone list! I had to take a short break from FLC to rewrite list of lemuroids, which was already an (old) FL so it wasn't brought here when I finished. It had to be done, though, not least because I needed all those citations for this list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the 81 genera (and 502 species!) of the 6 sublists (and 9 families) in the mammal order Primates. In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora), list of artiodactyls (capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla), and list of lagomorphs (capstone to the 2 sublists of Lagomorpha). This list is pushing the limits of the format, not because there's so many table rows but because there's waaay too many references. As in "the page stopped rendering" too many, and I had to do some dicing and condensing to get it all to fit, and the reference list is still the majority of the page length. Regardless, all of the monkeys are in there, so thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • In two places you use "primates is" - is this correct on the grounds that primates is being used here as a proper noun and not a plural (or something).....?
  • Yeah, the name of the order is annoying, but capital-P Primates is a singular noun like Carnivora, while lowercase-p primates is a plural noun like monkeys or dogs.
  • "these families are divided between two named suborders and are grouped in those suborder" - last word should be plural, I think
  • Done
  • "Diet: Leaves and forbs, as well as roots, corms, tubers and rhizomes" - I would link forbs, corms, tubers and rhizomes, as I am not sure these are widely-known terms
  • Done, as well as a couple others later on.
  • I haven't done a formal source review, but there's a couple of Harv errors showing
  • How are you seeing those? Not seeing anything in the article itself, though it wouldn't surprise me.
  • @ChrisTheDude: Ah, I had two names for the same book citation. Fixed, and added the harv reference error script so I can spot them next time. --PresN 13:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, is it a script? I lose track of what is a script and what comes "out of the box" :-) Anyway, support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AK

Very long list, loading the refs took a full 10 seconds.

  • For Semnopithecus, you have "Size range:...(Black-footed gray langur) to...(Black-footed gray langur)", the two should be merged. Also, I wonder if you need to mention the species at all, since in the circepithecoid list, you use this exact same size range for all Semnopithecus langurs, citing Walker's Primates of the World.
  • Will drop by with more comments later. AryKun (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "from the Margot Marsh's mouse lemur" Margot Marsh is a name, so the "the" before it is unnecessary.
  • "Southeast Asia and in a variety" Maybe replace the "and" with a comma.
  • "saki monkeys and marmosets and tamarins" to "saki monkeys, marmosets, and tamarins"?
  • "Lemuroidea...family Lorisidae" This portion is hard to read. Maybe instead of commas, you should just list the families and have the common names in parentheses next to the scientific name.
  • "as being made extinct" to "as having gone extinct", I remember discussing this in a previous FLC, but can't recall exactly which one.
  • "family are cercopithecids" to "family are called cercopithecids"?
  • Yeah, that's all I got. Didn't really pore over the tables because I'd like to preserve my sanity, but nothing seems too off at a glance. AryKun (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {[re|AryKun}} All done, I think. --PresN 01:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support everything else looks great, nice job! AryKun (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of European Le Mans Series champions[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list is about every one of the champions of the European Le Mans Series, a European endurance motor racing series. I have reworked and rewrote the list in the style of another list I got to featured status, List of FIA World Endurance champions. All comments are welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Community episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I wish to improve my impact as a wikipedian and I feel as this is a good step towards that. I compared to other FA episodes lists (specifically Arrested Development and The Sopranos). I think what I did should be good enough and hopefully if its not I can learn what is good enough.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just ran the internet archive bot on the page to archive various URLs. Past this point I plan not to mess with the page until someone begins their review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: Having worked on a fair number of Community articles, I know the production codes are not listed in the end credits, so they need to be sourced externally. I've used the Library of Congress in the past (example at "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"), but if you can find a better source, that would also work. I'll probably come back for a full review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This past discussion might help. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question I feel that some of the entry on the webisodes list are not webisodes and more ads and shouldnt be listed, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The WGA website lists The 5 A's of Greendale, Abed's Community College Chronicles, Abed's Master Key, Señor Chang's Spanish Video Assignment, and Dean Pelton: Office Hours as webisodes (link). Some of the names differ, but they mostly match with the webisodes here. I think Study Break, Road to the Emmys, Save Greendale, and the "Other" table could be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I said I'd circle back so here's a full review:

  • "American sitcom" → "American television sitcom"
 Done
  • If the lead sentence includes the start date, it should also include the end date (otherwise comes off as awkward or implies it's still airing)
 Done
  • Can't use a source from 2013 as a citation that Harmon was showrunner through 2015
 Done
  • Last two sentences of lead paragraph ("The series follows ... television clichés and tropes.") needs citations
 Done
  • "Ken Jeong, Chevy Chase," → "Ken Jeong, and Chevy Chase,"
 Done
  • "incident" is misspelled
 Done
  • Spell out "five" in "season 5" for consistency
 Done
  • "followed Nicole-Brown" → "followed by Brown"
 Done
  • "However it was given a reduced episode count down from 20+ to 13, this trend continued for the remainder of the show." – too much synthesis here, just say it was picked up for 13 episodes in the previous sentence
 Done
  • Add comma after "The day after the season four finale"
 Done
  • Replace comma after "it had renewed the series for a fifth season" with a semicolon to avoid a comma splice
 Done
  • No need to say the year twice for seasons 4, 5, and 6 – for instance, "the season ran from January 2 to April 17, 2014" is less repetitive
 Done
  • "A month later in May" – redundant
 Done
  • Since the list takes the time to list every renewal, I would include some other key context, either in the lead or in the body:
 Done
    • Season 1 was originally a smaller order of episodes (maybe 13?); it was increased to 22 in the fall and to 25 sometime in the winter/spring
 Done I found nothing about originally being 13 everything said that it was originally 22 episodes and later extended to 25
    • Season 3 saw the show put on hiatus over the winter
 Done
    • Season 4 was originally scheduled to air in fall 2012 before moving to spring 2013
 Done
    • The main Community article probably includes information about this; otherwise, a Google search should provide information about these events.
  • Start to each section should say "ended on" instead of just "ended"
 Done
  • "consisted of" → "consists of" (seasons still exist)
 Done
  • Follow WP:ITHAT for "Main article" links
 Done
  • Footnote a: Several changes here as well
 Done
    • No comma after "original broadcast"
 Done
    • Remove "and chronological" – gets confusing (are we talking about the internal timeline or the real-world broadcast timeline?) and is covered by "production order"
 Done
    • "all home media releases" → "home media releases" (streaming arguably falls into this category and Netflix and Hulu use the broadcast order, so no need to emphasize "all")
 Done
    • Include the same footnote next to episode 11
 Done
  • "The webisodes parody events that happen ... believe Abed can see the future." – citation needed
 Done
  • Remove "the main show" (redundant)
 Done
  • "The webisodes also appear" → "The webisodes also appeared" (website is now dead)
 Done
  • Remove "(plus a trailer)" (unsourced and not too important)
 Done
  • Links to sister projects are incorrect
 Done

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RunningTiger123: What does "Links to sister projects are incorrect" mean? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bottom of the page include Template:Sister project links, and the links are to the generic term "community" instead of "Community (TV series)". RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Thank you and I have now adressed all of the problems. Hopefully I didnt cause anymore, if all goes right this is my first FL, cant wait to see the signpost joke it gets paired with, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a few more copyedits where I either missed something earlier or wasn't clear about the change – feel free to ask if you have questions. I also found a reference for the original season 1 episode count being 13 and added it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 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. For the {{Episode table}} template, you just add a |caption parameter. The caption is set to be screen-reader only by default; to make it visual add |show_caption=y.
  • 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 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN: I'm confused as to what you mean I've read the MOS:DTAB and I doesnt see how to apply it to the episode table. I was looking at the tutorial page and it seems to be box lists and not the episode table. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since episode lists generate the table with a template, to add the caption you need to add a parameter to the template. Wherever you're using {{Episode table}}, add a "caption" parameter there, like {{Episode table|caption=Season one episodes}}. --PresN 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I went to all of the episode articles and added the parameter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Bilorv[edit]

Thanks for your work so far! I hope we can get this one promoted.

  • Community: The Movie reads like an official title, but so far as I know the movie has not been named. Instead the section could be titled "Upcoming movie", "Untitled movie" or simply "Movie".
 Done I labeled it "Untitled movie".
  • Community is quite remarkable in its history of renewals and cancellations. There's some good information on this in the body but I'd add (with these sources as a starting point: [1][2][3]):
    • In the lead and the body for season 3: the season 3 mid-season hiatus led to a "Save Community" fan campaign, with use of the slogan "six seasons and a movie" (from "Paradigms of Human Memory"). This was later reused by fans whenever the show's future was uncertain.
 Done
    • In the body for season 5: NBC cancelled the series and then Yahoo! picked it up (this is mentioned/sourced in the lead).
 Done
    • In the body for season 6: Yahoo! considered a seventh season but there were contract issues (ref #118). Shortly after Yahoo! Screen went bust anyway (ref #19).
 Done
    • I think there's more ups and downs to the movie but this section is going to change anyway based on future movie news and I think it's passable as it stands.
  • Refs #102 and #141 don't take me to the right place (can you archive and then check it's worked?). No other issues in the refs I checked (#1, #11, #19, #23, #24, #30, #51, #73, #76, #118, #136, as of Special:Permalink/).
 Done Adjusted the links might be a problem with the archive links though I removed them and will run the page through the bot when I finish the other changes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't part of the featured list criteria, but you could also consider a consistent reference style (e.g. are website names like TV by the Numbers/Entertainment Weekly linked or unlinked?). This would also mean reformatting the season 1–6 articles to a consistent style, at least for the tables transcluded here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Bilorv: I have covered what you have addressed , any other concerns? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There's some issues with the new text: the source doesn't verify that "six seasons and a movie" was used after the season 3/4 finales (and it wasn't used after season 6: "and a movie" was). You can't use a comma to separate two sentences ("this phrase went on ..." and "the series was ..." – see comma splice); "Notably appearing" doesn't start a standalone sentence; "Yahoo! Screen" needs to be followed by a period; "Untitled movie" shouldn't be in italics (it's not the name of the movie). — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think I have adressed those issues, somebody changed Untitled Movie back claiming sources called it that. I went looking they all say The Community Movie, except this one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Okay, with this I'm now happy to support promotion to featured list status. — Bilorv (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment

Why are there no ratings listed for season 6? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I'm not the nominator, but season 6 aired on a streaming service (Yahoo! Screen) so there are no ratings. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv: Gotcha, thanks. Then perhaps it would make sense to mention this below the ratings table, or add a row for season 6 and mention this with a reference in the table @OlifanofmrTennant? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hey man im josh: While I was originally going to add a efn to adress your problem . I looked for other locations where this is the case and the only one I found was The Flash (season 8) which just has text. So I have added a string of text. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by The Martian (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar to recent contemporary FLs, I am nominating this for featured list because I have reworked and rewrote it to match with those lists. Chompy Ace 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University[edit]

Nominator(s): User4edits (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominated for GA in the past, returned for FL, improved on the article (generally and as per GA review), and nominating for FL now. Thanks,User4edits (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Addressed comments. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Images should have alt text (see MOS:ALT)
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alt text still needed in infobox. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done User4edits (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A few places use "vice chancellor" instead of "vice-chancellor" – either one is fine, but it should be used consistently
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Three images in the infobox is probably too many – suggest removing the flag
as per Template:Infobox official post, see POTUS, PMoUK, PMoI. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Infoboxes don't have to use every possible parameter. Also, the examples provided have flags and seals that (a) differ significantly and (b) have their own articles. The flag and seal here are similar and aren't particularly notable, so they provide decoration more than anything. That's why I think one should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed seal of Univ. Left flag as flag pertains more to the Office. User4edits (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Dates should not start with a zero, i.e., "7 January 2022" instead of "07 January 2022" (MOS:DATE)
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "derives his powers" → "derives their powers" to match pronoun usage elsewhere
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "which shortlists few candidates" – "few" is redundant for a shortlist
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "in the chronological order" → "in chronological order"
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove column headers from the middle of the table (MOS:COLHEAD)
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If ref. 16 is the citation supporting all dates, it needs to be referenced after the most recent president took office.
Seems this was accidentally overlooked – still needs to be addressed. (Ref. 56 covers all presidents and could be used in place of the now-outdated ref. 16.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Done. User4edits (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the source for who appointed the vice-chancellors?
source added User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, I wasn't clear – what is the source that these individuals were in office at the time to make the appointments? (If there isn't a source naming the presidents/governors-general who appointed the vice-chancellors, it may not be particularly relevant information.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is based on corresponding Office held in the duration of the appointment, can be removed (by adding the Governor General information in the text). User4edits (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the appointments have been made for overt partisan reasons, I think removing that column is probably best. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No the appointments are made by the President of India as an institution and not much as personal choice. Done. User4edits (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the source for the various remarks? (some have references but not all)
Added User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsourced remarks still present for Sunder Lal, Govind Malaviya, Rao, and Lalji Singh. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done User4edits (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Sunder Lal: "Vice-chancellor" should not be capitalized
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge the two cells with the Lord Chelmsford for consistent formatting with other cells
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Madan Mohan Malaviya: Remark should not end in a period (not a complete sentence)
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Radhakrishnan: "Served as university's Vice-Chancellor for more than 8 years." – redundant to table, why is this relevant? (Also, "Vice-Chancellor" should not be capitalized, and statement should not end in period)
Two long stints, of Madan Mohan Malviya and Radhakrishnan have been highlighted in remarks. Rest, Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Govind Malaviya, Shrimali, Rao, Lalji Singh: "Alumni" → "Alumnus" (singular)
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Dhar, Lalji Singh, Tripathi: Remarks should not end in a period
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For Jain: "from 3 to 6 after 5 years" → "from third to sixth after five years"
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also, I'm confused – is the implication that the drop was Jain's fault? He hasn't been there for five years.
The ranking has been All-India third for five years, in Jain's term it dropped to sixth. The same has been mentioned for DP Singh as well when it ranked 1. User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be clearer to say the year it dropped from third to sixth. Or maybe something like "NIRF ranking of the university dropped to sixth after five years in third". RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123:Regarding the year, it is understood that it would pertain to the tenure (as in DP Singh). I think NIRF ranking of the university dropped to sixth after five years in third would appear more confusing to Indian english readers. User4edits (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need to capitalize "Seat", "Office", or "Vice-Chancellor" in the image captions under Timeline
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Madan Mohan Malviya resigns" → "Madan Mohan Malviya resigned"
Done User4edits (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll provide a source review shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review:

Addressed comments. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A lot of links are dead. Either replace them or check a digital archive like the Wayback Machine. WP:IABOT may help with this.
Done User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refs. 3 and 4 are insufficient to prove an official abbreviation – Twitter handles are usually abbreviated
Done in the lead with two reliable sources. Subsequently, removed cit. from the infobox. User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refs. 11, 32, 36, 42, 46, 47: Use |trans-title= (and note language if not already done)
Done User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refs. 18, 21: The Times of India has reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (WP:TOI). I would suggest using better sources.
I am aware of WP:TOI and had used it only as plain non-conflicting sources. I have removed all except one, which seems hard to replace as TOI is the only major publication doing depth reporting from the city concerned. User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref. 22: Is a stamp archive the best source for this?
Two RS added. User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formatted, another source added. User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another source added. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RunningTiger123: For your attention, please. User4edits (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 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. !{{abbr|No.|Number}} becomes !scope=col | {{abbr|No.|Number}}. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. !1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • First, Done
    • For the rest, I am not very technically aware, nor can I comprehend MOS:DTAB exactly, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks,
    User4edits (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN: please see the reply, thankyou, User4edits (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed it for you. --PresN 17:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC/DC discography[edit]

Nominator(s): VAUGHAN J. (TALK) and shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a list showing the discography of Australian rock band AC/DC. The list was created in 2006 by Gsmuk (inactive since 2012), expanded and first nominated for FLC in 2008 by No-Bullet (also inactive since 2012). The first FLC nomination ended up not promoting. 15 years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard this past week, to make it look like the discographies that is currently an FL (e.g. Daft Punk's or Slipknot's). This is my first FLC nomination, so I can tell it can get a bit hectic at times, so all types of feedback are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Take 1
  • I will do a full review later (looks really good at a first glance, BTW!), but is it worth adding a footnote that, although "Highway to Hell" was released in 1979, its peak position in the UK of number 4 didn't occur until well over 30 years later, in 2013.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey ChrisTheDude! Thanks for coming in to check out the article to review it. Now, it's not really worth putting a footnote, mentioning the fact that the song peaked in the UK charts more than 30 years later. We're only leaving it the way it is, without a footnote, because that's the peak number that the song reached in the UK. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 09:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to this FLC. I agree with my co-nominator about minimising notes in the tables. The various tables would become cluttered with numerous such notes for various works e.g. Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap was issued in US in 1981 and charted there on the strength of Back in Black (1980). It entered the ARIA charts in Australia in 2008 but its peak in that year is lower than its spot on KMR in 1976. Such information is available at the album's article and rather too complex for a note per release. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, it was just a thought....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take 2
  • "Bon Scott died" - per MOS:SURNAME, no need to repeat his forename – Done
  • "In 50 years of their career, AC/DC sold" - have they retired/split up? If not then it should be "In 50 years of their career, AC/DC has/have (not sure which is correct in Aussie English) sold" – Done
  • "Back in Black alone sold 25 million copies (50 million worldwide)" - which country/countries does that first figure relate to? – Done
  • "Angus observed" - he should not be referred to by his forename alone. Normally just his surname would be used, but as there are multiple Youngs in the band, you will have to use his full name – Done
  • I realise they are primarily an albums act, but there's literally not a single mention of their singles in the lead (other than the count in the first sentence). I feel that in the interest of completeness, the lead should at least say something about the singles element of their discography – Done
  • That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have addressed these concerns (most are copy edits). For the singles I decided to tackle their popular singles per certifications. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One more comment following the above edits. In the lead you now have both "AC/DC has" and "AC/DC have". I honestly don't know whether in Australian English band names are treated as singular (like in the US) or plural (like in the UK) bit whichever it is it needs to be consistent..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're quite correct, Australian English typically follows standard British usage and treats band names as plural. Notwithstanding this, I've left any "AC/DC has" that are part of titles in references. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the support! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Image review and source review 1

Image review : Passed

  • Image relevant
  • Image appropriately licensed
  • Suggest adding alt text – Done

Source review 1

  • Version reviewed
  • Fn 2 : link is dead – Done
  • Fn 3 : no need to include location – Done
  • Fn 6 : website says it is called LouderSound not TeamRock – Query
Could be a recent name change? Check the archive-url, it says TeamRock. Should I change it to LouderSound? shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the URL to be the updated version that has Power Up from Classic Rock. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 13 : link to Time magazine – Done
  • Fn 20: include language parameter – Done
  • Fn 26-29, 33-40, et, all : why is the website listed as Electric Shock – Reply
Again, this appears to be a name change. Check archive-url. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can see it on the Aus version of High Voltage, so I'm changing it to ac-dc.net as the publisher just in case. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 66: be consistent with writing titles and cases – Done
  • Fn 67 : Billboard is not linked, while you have linked it in every other instance. As a matter of consistency, it should be linked in every instance, or only the first. – Done
  • Fn 73 : missing work/website name – Done
  • Fn 91 : doesn't have a publisher – Done
  • Fn 116 : why is AC/DC in lower case? – Done
  • Fn 125 : link Radioscope to t he chart Recorded Music NZ – Done
  • What makes TechGeek.au a high-quality reliable source? – Removed
  • What makes Noise11 a high-quality reliable source? – Changed
I changed that ref to be from Triple M. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Noise11 is a website established by Paul Cashmere and his partner Roz Gorman in 2011, which replaced his previous website Undercover (established 1994). According to "Outa Site", Undercover did "an excellent job, generating more than a handful of local music news grabs a day." shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. @Vaughan J.: Could you check the above. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping me once you have addressed above. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pseud 14: I think everything has been addressed. There are some comments from shaidar cuebiyar mostly on the source review. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done, Vaughan J. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source review 2 and spot checks

Source review 2

  • Version reviewed
  • Fn 59 : Radioscope not linked (2 other instances are linked) – Done
This was a problem with the Cite certification template. If you check its wikicode you'll see that RadioScope does not appear there and so cannot be wikilinked for this entry. I've replaced the Cite certificate 'plate with Cite web one. I've also changed RadioScope to RadioScope New Zealand.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 63, 72 : Since you have done such a good job of italicizing album titles, this probably should be as well, and should be consistent throughout – Done
  • Fn 76, 81 : AllMusic is italicized, while the rest aren't. Should be consistent. Suggest linking as you had done with other parameters. – Done
I think I've got all these pesky mites. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 104 : Author is Ellie Robinson – Done

Spot checks

  • Fn 4 : ok
  • Fn 9 : ok
  • Fn 13 : ok
  • Fn 41 : can't seem to find any mention of diamond certification. How many units or times would it be platinum certified to achieve such in Canada? – Done
I've added a note to the ref: User may have to click on numbers 2 or 3 (at bottom of listing) to access further information. As for Canadian diamond it equals 10× platinum, which for Back in Black is for more than 1,000,000 units. (Canadian ratings changed for albums released after May 2008). shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 76 : ok
  • Fn 91 : ok
  • Fn 109 : ok
  • Fn 127 : the video album doesn't seem to be listed as diamond certified – Done
Fixed both urls, previous ones led to albums not video albums. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fn 139 : - ok
@Vaughan J.: Your turn. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ll get into it as soon as I have time, because of school. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok on the first pass. Taking a second look to make sure I don't miss anything and as a due diligence did spot checks for verifiability. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pseud 14: I believe everything has been sorted out. Thanks for the review! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like everything is in order. This passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status[edit]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Not to bother you guys, but I need a status update for this FLC. It's now been inactive for almost 2 months. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur on this request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Australia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australia has 20 World Heritage Sites, including the Sydney Opera House, Uluru, and the Great Barrier Reef (and several ones that are a bit less known that those three). Standard style. The list for India is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. This one is medium-length, the next couple of nominations will likely be shorter. Tone 22:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side note, it seems I forgot to add it to the FLC list when I created this nomination, fixed now. Tone 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

Steelkamp (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. I used another image for the lakes, it is more informative anyway :) --Tone 07:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed all, thanks! Tone 09:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Plural of mollusc is molluscs.
  • Is there are version of File:Willandra Lakes.png without the numbers on the image that can be used? With no key, the numbers are useless.
  • "the Aboriginal Australians have lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago." I would change this to just "Aboriginal Australians lived in the area at least 21,000 years ago."

Steelkamp (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AK
  • Copy-edited somewhat.
  • "found the cremation burial dating" This seems grammatically and semantically wrong; you can't cremate and bury a person at the same time.
  • "wild river systems" as opposed to domestic rivers?
  • "ancient relict species Pherosphaera fitzgeraldii and Wollemia" Wollemia is not a species, might want to reword.
  • That's all I have; nice job! AryKun (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! A wild river is actually a term depicting an unregulated river, and in the context of Tasmania, it is relevant. Linked and additional text provided. Tone 09:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • There's a random space between "August 1974" and the full stop
  • " is world's most extensive coral reef system" => " is the world's most extensive coral reef system"
  • "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, as well as fossils of giant marsupials." => "Archaeologists found a cremation dating to around 40,000 years BP, early stone tools, and fossils of giant marsupials."
  • "The area is home to the threatened species such as the boodie," => "The area is home to threatened species such as the boodie,"
  • "At the length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island" => "At a length of 122 km (76 mi), Fraser Island"
  • " It also includes the only growing sites of the ancient relict species" - what is a "relict species"?
  • "The coastal waters are home to one the longest coral reefs" =? "The coastal waters are home to one of the longest coral reefs"
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! Linked relict species as this is a biological term. Tone 16:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five years ago, I nominated List of Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees for FLC which failed because the prose was very short. I merged that article with Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame, expanded the prose, and am ready to tackle on any comments for this list Erick (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "The hall of fame was conceived by Child after realizing he was" => "The hall of fame was conceived by Child after he realized that he was"
  • "to be inducted into Songwriters Hall of Fame" => "to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame"
  • "16 years prior its conception" => "16 years prior to its conception"
  • "selected by its committee of music professions" => "selected by its committee of music professionals"
  • There's a random space between the two refs at the end of the first paragraph
  • "After a two year absence" => "After a two-year absence"
  • Something seems to be wrong with the 2014, 2015 and 2016 entries in the posthumous inductees table, as if I sort on any other column and then re-sort on year, an additional blank row appears for each year
  • "The La Musa Honorees was only presented" - "honorees" is plural so not appropriate to use a singular verb
  • In the "previously nominated" table, I would be tempted to put the number of nominations column before the year and also maybe rename it to "No. of noms." as "NN" is a bit obscure
  • External link needs a bullet point before it
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review! I think I got everything! Let me know if the table still acts weird. Erick (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's still issues with the table. It's something to do with the rowspans but I can't quite figure it out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw some issues as I was passing by but they were for 2017 and 2018 for me. I made some edits – did they fix the issue on your end? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes! Thanks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you runningtiger123! @ChrisTheDude is the list good to go? Erick (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 11 November 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. ! style="background:#efefef;" | Year becomes !scope=col style="background:#efefef;" | Year (or just !scope=col | Year). You have these for the first 2 tables, but not in Honorees.
  • 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. |2013 becomes <nowiki>!scope=row |2013/nowiki>. You have these for the first 2 tables, but not in Honorees.
  • 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 17:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN Did I do everything right? Erick (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, although it looks like for most of them you made the name the "primary" column, but for Hero's Award and Conqueror Award you did the year, and they should probably be consistent. Oh, and you missed the Previously nominated artists table for rowscopes. --PresN 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN Done. Thanks so much for the table feedback! Erick (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of National Football League annual interceptions leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is #9 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders (7th one I've contributed to). Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COmments
  • First sentence needs to mention that we are talking about American football
  • "did not begin tracking interceptions under 1940" - until, surely?
  • "Dick Lynch led the league twice during the 1960's" - 1960s doesn't have an apostrophe
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for looking over the list and providing this helpful feedback. I've made fixes that I hope address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NØ[edit]

  • Image review: The source links on all(!) of the images appear to be dead. Have you looked at the archive to see if something can be salvaged?
  • Source review: The references follow a consistent format which italicizes all of the website names and the few links I spotchecked are working. Apologies for not being familiar with sports sources. If Pro-Football-Reference.com is considered a reputed source then the SR passes.
  • The prose is top quality so it is a support on that front.--NØ 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MaranoFan: Pro-Football-Reference.com is indeed considered a reliable source (based on sources used by User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter) and I use it extensively for the lists that I work on. As for the source links for images, is it standard to expect that the original sources are active or linked via archive? This is something I haven't had asked of me before. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)*Reply[reply]
    When the source links are dead I usually ask for the archives just to verify the files were avilable under the stated license (it is also appropriate to link them in a bracket after the dead link on the file page). Exceptions can always be made if they are not available on the archive site, though.--NØ 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MaranoFan: Am I meant to edit the file, or do you just want the links? I'll put the work in I just want to make sure I'm doing it right :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It could go in parenthesis after the dead link, like what I've done here for example, if you want to add it to the file. For the purpose of the image review, I would just need to see that the licensing is correct so providing the links is sufficient!--NØ 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks @MaranoFan. I'll take a crack at that tomorrow (probably) and send you a ping once I've gone through all the images. Appreciate the tip and example! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MaranoFan: I was able to add archive links for all of the images except for the first one, which features Night Train Lane. I did manage to find the image in 3 locations though (1, 2, 3). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The source and image reviews both pass.--NØ 16:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Municipalities of Guerrero[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is yet another list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 42 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. 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) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

  • Should the "S" in Southwest Mexico be capitalised? From Googling, there seems to be a mixture of capitalised and non-capitalised, which indicates that Wikipedia should not capitalise it. There is no Wikipedia article on Southwest Mexico, but Guerrero does not capitalise the term.
  • I don't have a strong opinion on this, but grammatically if it's a direction it's not capitalized but if it's a region or place, it is. So I can see why it goes either way since it is both.
  • Seeing as there is a mix of capitalised and non-capitalised, it should be non capitalised on Wikipedia, as MOS:CAPS says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia".
  • Should census be decapitalised?  Done
  • Can Mexican Census link to Censo General de Población y Vivienda instead (a redirect from Mexican census)?  Done
  • Can the population density column be split into two columns similar to land area? That column really stands out by having the units and two different measurements all in the same column, and with the size of my screen, there are some rows which have the km2 and sq mi on different lines which makes reading down the column hard.
  • For this I don't really have a strong opinion either way, your suggestion is probably a bit better than it is now. I'm not sure why this format was chosen originally but almost all lists for all Mexican and American states have this format. It would be odd to make this one stand out with a different format than all the others, and it would be too onerous to change all 85 other lists (including dozens of featured lists) to then match this one. Not sure if this is a critical change you are suggesting? Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do truly believe this would make this list better, and the other lists too. If it's too onerous to change all lists over right now, you can change this list over now and the other lists over time. Is it really that big a deal if there is a slight inconsistency with the lists for a while? Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all from me. Steelkamp (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review! I've resolved or asked a follow up question for all comments. Mattximus (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I received a comment in the talk page about updating 4 new municipalities. I've updated one so far. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Just making sure you've seen this message. Steelkamp (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now completed all changes and fixed all errors posted on the talk page. I've reflected upon this last change and I'm wondering if it's a dealbreaker. It would take dozens and dozens of hours to change all the featured lists to your suggested format, but it would be odd to have this one stand out as different. Mattximus (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think the the population density should be split into two columns. This would come under the Visual appeal portion of the featured list criteria. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging PresN ... No rush on this, I'm aware that sometimes you like to weigh in on formatting questions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is... overall, I don't think it has to be split. Persons/sqkm and persons/sqmi are equivalent and will always sort the exact same, it's just two different ways of expressing the same concept. I do think it's slightly odd to have it split for area but not density, but given that it took more than 40 lists (and FLCs) before the point was raised, I think it's a very minor issue. (It also makes the table even wider- I did a quick find-and-replace with a regex (\{\{Pop density\|([\d\. ]+)\|([\d\. ]+)\|km2\|sqmi\|prec=1\}\} -> {{Pop density|$1|$2|prec=1}} || {{Pop density|$1|$2|km2|sqmi|prec=1|disp=num}}, which misses some rows), and it really squishes the table more than it already is.) Ultimately, I wouldn't not promote if that was the only outstanding issue. --PresN 20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Sydney Metro stations[edit]

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a list of stations on the newest and only rapid transit system in Australia. The Sydney Metro only opened in 2019, but there are plans to rapidly expand it over the next decade, causing the largest part of the list to be the future stations section. This would be my first featured list and WikiProject Australian Transport's first featured list if it passes. As the Sydney Metro is quite new, its far easier to find sources and write a featured list than on many older systems, which is why I chose to do this list as my first featured list candidate. I welcome any feedback. Steelkamp (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • "The Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport is planned to open in 2026 upon the opening of the Western Sydney Airport.[6][9] The Western Sydney Airport line will have six new metro stations.[10] The Sydney Metro West is planned to open in 2030. This section will have nine new stations, all of which will be underground" - these four sentences are quite short and choppy and I think the first two and last two could be combined, by using "and will have"
  • Original opening dates for Chatswood and Epping don't seem to be sourced.....?
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I have implemented these suggestions. Steelkamp (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • Personally I would remove the notes column and simply add a notes section at bottom (using {{#tag:ref| and notelist). My reasoning is that most stations don't have any notes and some are triplicated (all three could link to a single note). Same with second list, one note is repeated 6 times (!!!). This will make it a cleaner looking tables, and not looking like random factoids for some stations.
    • I have instead created a transfers column and put the original opening dates as notes. How is that?
  • I'm confused at the missing lines column for the second table, could that not include transfers instead of having them in the notes?
    • For the first table, the lines column only lists the Sydney Metro line at each station, not the Sydney Trains lines or NSW TrainLink lines, which is just a list design choice on my part seeing as this is a list focused on the Sydney Metro. I don't want to do a lines column for the second table because we have no idea what the lines are going to be called when those sections open. The Sydney Metro City & Southwest project is going to be served by an extension of the Metro North West Line, but I would be very surprised if that name does not change when the City & Southwest project opens in 2024 and 2025 considering the direction would be contradictory. As for the Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport and Sydney Metro West, those projects don't even have a separate page for the lines yet which means there is nothing to list in that column for the stations on those projects.
  • Is there any information on ridership? This would make for an interesting column
    • I haven't been able to find any complete data on ridership for each station. I have asked another user if they know of any source for this data though.
  • Is there any symbol used for the lines, this is common for many list of stations to help readers connect what they see in real life to the list.
    • No distinct symbols or colours for each line yet. Currently, there is File:TfNSW M.svg, but that is only used to distinguish the one currently open metro line with the Sydney Trains lines.
  • Changes all look good, I'm close to support, just a few more minor quibbles:
  • I changed the formatting of the legend using the legend template, I made the change myself, is this ok?
    • That looks good. I didn't even know that template existed.
  • I would move the map at the top to the section called "future stations" (justified right) and include a map of current stations at the top of the page. This will prevent confusion.
    • That would require making a new map. I will try to make an interactive map using Template:Maplink and OpenStreetMap, but that will be a few days away.
      • While this would be ideal for a featured list, even just moving the map with future stations to beside the future stations table would be sufficient. Mattximus (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the first sentence of the last paragraph should be at the end of the first paragraph. The article is about stations so stations and station numbers should be mentioned in the first paragraph.
    • Good point. I have done that.
  • The second sentence of the last paragraph needs some grammatical work. Instead of " It is planned that", it can be. "There are x stations and x km of track under construction with a planned opening of 2030" or something like that.
    • I have reworded this sentence. How is it now?
      • Much better than my wording even.
@Mattximus: I have tried to create a map from OSM, but the Sydney Metro West and Western Sydney Airport projects are not OSM right now which means this option is out of the question. If we are to keep the current image, I think the lead is still the best spot for it as the lead goes over the whole list, including current and future stations. Plus at least on my screen, having an image within the future stations section would make the table considerably squished, so I don't think its a good idea to have an image there. Steelkamp (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I still disagree about the map, all other suggestions and changes were met. Well done on the article! Support Mattximus (talk) 21:02, 11 November 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. ! Station becomes !scope=col | Station. 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. | [[Bella Vista railway station|Bella Vista]] becomes !scope=row | [[Bella Vista railway station|Bella Vista]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the review! All those changes have been made. Steelkamp (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by The Wind Rises[edit]

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a list of awards and nominations received by Hayao Miyazaki's 2013 film The Wind Rises. This is my third nomination, and after expanding and adding sources, I believe it now meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated! Harushiga (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "It grossed $136.8 million worldwide" - as the film was made in a country that does not use a $ currency, it is unclear which currency this actually represents. Presumably US, but could you clarify?
  • Think that's it - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Yes, it is US dollars. Fixed. Harushiga (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

Always love to see some Ghibli content up at a content review venue! I just have a few things. Citation numbers are from this revision.

  • I'd remove citation 1 per MOS:LEADCITE. It seems a bit excessive to cite basic first-sentence information from the film's production company, but it's up to you.
    • Not done. I'd rather keep it so that the information can be easily verified.
  • The second sentence runs on a bit too long. It seems to deal with two different things: Anno's voice acting role, and Horikoshi being the subject. I'd split the sentence into two to reflect this and, while we're at it, mention the other voice actors who star in the film.
    • Done.
  • Most of the award ceremonies are referred to with ordinal numbers, except for the 2014 Tokyo Anime Awards. I'd stick to one or the other for consistency.
    • Removed the year.
      Up to you whether you want to include an ordinal number or not for this; I just read through Tokyo Anime Award and understand that it might be a little confusing to go either way due to the odd distinction between the TAA and the TAAF. —TS
  • Is there a reason certain citations (especially Anime News Network) use |publisher= instead of |website=?
    • It's based on how their respective Wikipedia articles stylize the publication's name. Anime News Network's article doesn't italicize the name, so I used |publisher=. Same for something like The Hollywood Reporter; since the name is italicized, |website= is used instead.
      Hmm, now I want to know why they're not italicized in those articles! I digress, though, and your answer is good enough for me in this case. —TS
  • Italicize Kinema Junpo in citation 28.
    • Done.
  • Citations 30 and 49 need {{hair space}}s to fix kerning issues. (Also, replace the ampersand in 30 per MOS:&.)
    • Done.
  • "The National Board of Review and several film critic organizations..." might be less awkward as "Several film critic organizations, including the National Board of Review...".
    • Replaced.
  • The recipients for the Golden Trailer Awards are in double quotation marks; are those titles the actual names of those media? Something like "UK Trailer", for example, seems like it can drop the quotes so we're not implying it's a proper name.
    • They're the actual names of the trailers, which is why they're in double quotation marks.
  • Image review passed; File:Hayao Miyazaki cropped 1 Hayao Miyazaki 201211.jpg is under an appropriate free license (and/or public domain in Japan? Copyright is weird) and is tagged accordingly.

Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with the rest of the candidacy! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for the thorough review! I've addressed your comments above. Harushiga (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, Harushiga! Nice work on this list overall, it's a support from me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Bath City F.C. managers[edit]

Nominator(s): Krashaon19 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article has good potential. I am currently attempting to gain featured status with all Bath City F.C. related lists. I also trust that with more experienced editors assistance, the review process would improve it's quality greatly. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note
  • This nomination was not transcluded to the FLC page until 31 December 2023 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Initial comment
  • There seem to be some significant sourcing issues here. Taking the Gary Owers row as an example, the refs confirm the exact date of his departure but only the calendar year of his appointment, and neither of them contains any data whatsoever related to the club's win/loss record during his tenure. The two refs against the Lee Howells row don't confirm either his arrival date or departure, let alone the playing record during his tenure. John Relish refs do not seem to support the dates of arrival (other than that he was "new" in late June 2005) or departure, the playing record, or the Somerset Cup wins. I think there is a not insignificant amount of unsourced content in this list so unfortunately I have to oppose at this time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Airship

I've had a look at CTD's issues and I find them to be convincing. You can mark me down as an oppose as well, on the grounds of text-source integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam[edit]

Nominator(s): --TheUzbek (talk) 07:32, 22 October 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. This list is modelled on my two former and successful FL nominees; 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

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. For those of you who, well, don't know what "Members of the 12th Central Committee" entails, it literally means the leadership of Vietnam for the 12th electoral of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Included in this list are all the high-standing party-state leaders in the period in question. In some ways, as a list, it is similar to, for example, the 112th United States Congress, which is a list of most national leaders of the United States. This list is more comprehensive and includes the leadership of the executive, legislature, judicial, military, police el cetra in one list. --TheUzbek (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portland Trail Blazers draft history[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazertalk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm back with my second FLC while I wait for my first one to be resolved. I decided to work on another NBA list and have worked on this one off and on over the last few months. This one is about the draft selections of the Portland Trail Blazers beginning with their first pick back in 1970 and the accomplishments of many of them while playing for the team. -- ZooBlazertalk 23:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Will review soon- upon first look, the lead is very long. The lead should most certainly be divided with headers and reorganized appropriately. Perhaps "History" or "Statistics" or something else. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've divided up the lead with headers.
I'm also in the process of adding the missing players from the table, which may take a day or two. At first I thought it would just be extra clutter to add every single pick when most missing players aren't notable, but I looked at draft history articles for other teams and many include even the non notable players. - This is now finished. -- ZooBlazertalk 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Would you still be willing to do a review if you have a chance? ZooBlazer 06:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ZooBlazer, completely forgot, thanks for reminding me. After looking through and making some minor changes, I only have one comment: the coloration on the table headers is making the up and down arrows not visible. Is there any way to have them visible? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk Hmm, I'm not sure. Looking at other all-time roster articles, it looks like the template ({{NBA all-time roster}}) always makes the arrows black regardless of the team colors used. I don't know if there is something that can be updated in the template or if the table in the article can be individually changed to make the arrows white or red. ZooBlazer 15:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if it's a standard part of the template, I don't think it's too disagreeable. Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by comment
More comments
  • "The franchise won its [...] and were" - subject changes from singular to plural mid-sentence
  • "led by their 1974 first overall pick, Bill Walton, as well as multiple other of their former draft picks from that team who went on to have their numbers retired by Portland" => "led by their 1974 first overall pick, Bill Walton, along with other former draft picks who went on to have their numbers retired by Portland" is far more succinct and easy to read
  • "Many of the players selected players" - repeated word
  • "The team also has four Rookie of the Year winners, three of whom were drafted by Portland" => "Three players drafted by Portland won the Rookie of the Year award" (if the fourth guy to win that award wasn't drafted by Portland then he isn't relevant to this article)
  • "Geoff Petrie, the franchise's first ever draft pick was named" => "Geoff Petrie, the franchise's first ever draft pick, was named"
  • "Petrie averaged 21.8 points, 2.8 rebounds, and 4.6 assist" - are there appropriate wikilinks for these terms, as I for one have no idea what a "rebound" is (the others I can probably guess)
  • "In 1972, they chose center LaRue Martin from Loyola Chicago, the team then chose" - start a new sentence after Chicago to break up an extremely long run-on sentence
  • "and 3.7 blocks during the series" - would benefit from a link here too
  • "as he had season ending microfracture surgery" => "as he had season-ending microfracture surgery"
  • "two points field goals made" - I *think* this should be "two-point field goals made"
  • Could do with a link on "steals" wherever that is mentioned first
  • Also link field goals (I thought that was an American football thing......?)
  • And free throws too
  • "Drexler won in 1992 in Barcelona as a member of the Dream Team, and Lillard won at the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo" - seems a bit random to pipe out the words "Summer Olympics" on the first usage but not the second. If you are only going to show it once then it really should be on the first usage
  • "winning one of the bronze" => "winning one of the bronzes"
  • "Dave Twardzik (#13), Lionel Hollins (#14), Larry Steele (#15), Drexler (#22), Bob Gross (#30), Terry Porter (#30), Walton (#32), Lloyd Neal (#36), and Petrie (#45)." - this is not a complete sentence
  • In the key you have symbols along with colour to denote Hall of Famer and NBA All-Star (which is correct - colour alone is not enough for accessibility reasons) but then you don't actually use the symbols in the table
  • You need a symbol for First Overall NBA Draft Pick
  • I'd be tempted to add something into the History section to cover the fact that the draft has (apparently) shrunk dramatically in size since 1970, with the result that a team has gone from being able to draft a whopping 19 players a year down to just 2. It just looks a little odd in the table without context -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thank you for the feedback. I think I've addressed everything that you mentioned. -- ZooBlazertalk 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – The pattern for the combined cells (such as Walton's and Wicks') makes it very hard to read the player name. I suggest choosing just one background color (either the more significant honor or a new arbitrary color just for those combos). SounderBruce 01:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SounderBruce Which option would you suggest? It was originally the color of the most significant honor, but I changed it because there was a similar situation brought up during one of my recent FLCs by EN-Jungwon. I do agree that it's hard to read. ZooBlazer 01:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Making the stripes wider might also be an option. As it stands, the main issue is that the close spacing is causing an optical illusion. SounderBruce 02:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SounderBruce I changed just the first instance of the double colors as a test. I made the prominent honor color a bigger line. Would that work? Or should i try something else? I'm inexperienced when it comes to this kind of thing, so it's a lot of trial and error. ZooBlazer 03:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is easier to read with thicker stripes, but they should be consistent widths. Having fewer stripes is totally fine; using non-diagonal ones could also help with readability. SounderBruce 04:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SounderBruce I made the lines 180 degrees. That look okay? ZooBlazer 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SounderBruce: Just wanted to ping you again to see if further changes need to be done still or not with the pattern. -- ZooBlazer 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in India[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, here is a very long list! India has 42 sites on the list and a further 50 on the tentative one. As opposed to some other WHS lists, this one is seeing some more editing but the list itself is stable enough. Latvia has just been promoted and Germany is seeing support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment – The tables use forced column widths for no apparent reason, while they create unnecessarily empty cells. I tried to change this, but the nominator reverted my edits without explanation. – Editør (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fixed columns parameter was used for consistency between the WHS lists. However, it is true that the particular format was applied before the overhaul in the default display, which makes the articles much more narrow. I am open to changes, however, whatever we do, I would like to have the column widths consistent between the main and the tentative tables. Tone 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If changes in the default display negatively effect the standard layout of these WHS lists, I think it is worth looking into it. Also, I noticed that the wide maps at the beginning tend to squeeze the text in narrower windows, try viewing the India list at 850 pixels wide. – Editør (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: There are a lot of grammar issues here and I'm not going to try to list them all. Tone, I think it would be easiest for me to copyedit this, but I wouldn't !vote afterwards – would that work for you? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, go ahead. Appreciated! I went through several times but, as you know, after several readings, you cannot spot mistakes anymore :) Tone 06:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, I've made my edits to the article – if any look wrong, let me know. I don't want to formally !vote since that's usually discouraged after contributing to the article beyond one or two tweaks (at least from my experience), but consider this an informal support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you, I checked, I thing everything works. As said, this article was edited extensively not just by me so it was more difficult to keep track on everything due to its sheer size. Tone 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I did some small grammar fixes, but not too manu. Great list; I learned a lot! --TheUzbek (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support did some minor copy-editing, mostly just moving around articles, and no other concerns. AryKun (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The map is well over the size limit in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size.
  • "exhibited strong influence in India". This makes no sense. Do you mean influenced by other art or influenced other art?
  • "This site comprises two properties in the West Himalayas". "properties" is an odd word for nature reserves. Maybe "areas".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for the image, MOS mentions exceptional situations, which I think is a valid reason to have it larger. Germany's map is 500px. I can make it 500px here and it still does not look too crowded. I'll wait until the rest of the comments before I go through with changes. Tone 10:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The source for Namdapha National Park goes to River Island.
  • "Mughal gardens are gardens built by the Mughals. This style was influenced by Persian gardens" I do not think you need to say that they were built by the Mughals. Maybe "The Mughal gardens were built in a style influenced by Persian gardens.
  • "They have a distinct culture from other tribes in the region". This reads oddly to me. Maybe "a culture which is distinct from that of other tribes".
  • "Chilika Lake is a large brackish water lagoon, fed by over 50 rivers and streams. It is an ephemeral formation". The source does not say that the lake is ephemeral, it says it is in an ephemeral environment.
  • "The island is important given the evolution of species on isolated islands." This does not really mean anything. Maybe "The island provides an important example of evolutionary processes due to its isolation."
  • "Material remains at the site, hinting at the interactions with other regional cultures." What does this mean?
  • "Lothal is the only explored port-town of the Indus Valley civilisation". The source says the only port town. Leave out "explored".
  • "The fortified consisted of a citadel with wide streets". fortified what?
  • "were influential in temples from later periods. " "were influential in temples built in later periods."
  • "It is also home to several animal and plant species." This applies to all areas.
  • "The dolmens and rock paintings date to the 1st millennium BCE to the Iron Age". I am not sure where you got this from. 1st millennium dolmens is in a comparison with Korea. The source refers to Mesolithic rock art, which according to the wiki article is 12,000 and 8,000 BP in India. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am through. Thank you, great comments, as always. What do you propose regarding the image? If I use upright, this creates a mess with the overlapping text. I am not sure if there is a better way to have a clickable map like that. Italy, Canada, the US, and probably others also have large maps and this is the first time this was an issue. I still suppose this could be one of the exceptions? Tone 11:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging @Dudley Miles: as Tone didn't so you likely missed it; this nomination has been hanging around for a while so I wanted to give it a nudge. --PresN 03:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Los Angeles Rams head coaches[edit]

Notified: Gary, Juliancolton, WP:NFL, WP:RAMS, WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is not professional ("this time losing to the Detroit Lions in a playoff", there are a lot of colloquial terms ("openly flirted") and weasel words ("Knox was unable to recreate the magic of his earlier tenure). Dashes need fixing, season records need to have a tooltip explaining what they mean, and overall the prose reads very unencyclopedic.
  • 2. Lead: the lead is excessively long, overly detailed and is tagged as such. There are also a ton of duplicate links in the lead.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead. Sources lack consistent formatting and need to be archived. There is no need for the "List" template in Allen, Knox and Vermeil's "Accomplishments" column. The "Notes" section is almost completely unsourced.
  • 4. Structure: the key needs to be reworked, as the number of coaches and winning record can be replaced with tooltips in the table. The different awards won by the coaches should be linked. The table needs to be sortable. The images need to be increased to 100px (imho) to be useful. To tone down some of the coloring in the table (which to me is I would drop the coloring for "HoF as a player" as not exactly relevant to this list.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table and no alt text on the photos.

The list was nominated 15 years ago when standards were quite different, and the list went through a massive expansion of the lead that was never properly cleaned-up/sourced. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree this needs to be delisted. This is maybe the single worst case of lede expansion I've ever seen. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it would be bad, I didn't think it was gonna be that bad. ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know if it helps, but I restored the lead as it was prior to the colossal expansion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gonzo_fan2007, being an avid Rams fan since they moved back to Los Angeles (I'm a native of that city and currently live in the metro area), I'm going to attempt to salvage this list. Bear in mind, I've never done any featured list work on anything sports-related outside of Olympic medal tables, and therefore I'll probably need advice. Looking at the list. I feel like the lead introduction does not need to entail the entire history of the Rams since that seems to be more appropriate on the respective team history article page and/or the season history page. Lookimg at the most recent gridiron football head coaches lists to be promoted to featured status, I think the format should look like List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches or List of LSU Tigers head football coaches. I think it could also begin with a brief summary of the team's location and stadium history.
I'd like to also mention that my laptop in my new home is currently not working. So I can only do work on featured lists primarily Wednesday through Friday whem I'm at my old home. Furthermore, I'm currently working improving a few Oscar ceremonies lists (Namely, the 96th Oscar nominations list will be announced this coming Tuesday with the winners announced on March 10. I plan to submit the list for FLC in July). I also plan to help RunningTiger123 in helping get the 75th Primetime Emmy Awards to FL standards. So please be patient with me.
--Birdienest81talk 10:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Carolina Panthers seasons[edit]

Notified: PGPirate, WP:NFL, WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is not professional, with short choppy sentences, as well as long run-on sentences.
  • 2. Lead: the Lead could use some work, maybe highlighting some key coaches or eras of the team's existence. Also, needs to be updated.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and limited inline citations in the table (just to a few of the awards). Excluding source 5, all the other inline cites are to dead links. The general list of references include a few dead links as well. It is also very unclear where the whole table itself is cited to.
  • 4. Structure: the structure of the table doesn't coincide with the accepted structure of these lists, specifically the summary of total wins. Also, the inclusion of "owners" doesn't seem consistent with other season lists.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, in the legend (using just colors) and no alt text on the lone photo.

The list was nominated 15 years ago when standards were quite different. That said, the complete lack of sourcing and accessibility issues bring this up to becoming a need to either improve or delist. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This definitely needs a near total rework. I might have some time to take a stab at resolving these problems, but as-is there's clearly problems. Toa Nidhiki05 18:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as a heads-up, Gonzo_fan2007, I'm taking up the challenge here. I've reworked the table to be compliant with policy - I think. Take a look and let me know. It now has proper citations and formatting, and I removed the owner column. I've also reworked the entire lead, adding citations to all claims. I also added the alt text. Let me know if anything else is needed. Toa Nidhiki05 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Nice (quick!) work Toa Nidhiki05. A few more nitpicky things:
  • You can use the {{Abbrlink}} template for the player/coach awards (i.e. COTYTooltip Coach of the Year)
  • In the legend, add a non-breaking space before the icon (i.e. Conference champions #). Also do this in the table or make it superscript.
  • Use the {{Win–loss record}} template for all the records in the table.
  • Note b should be added to the 2019 coaches.
  • You can link List of Carolina Panthers head coaches in the header of the table.
  • You could add a few notes clarifying some things. Other season lists have notes for when coaches have been fired mid-season and when the NFL has changed the number of games in a season. See List of Green Bay Packers seasons for a few examples.
  • Ref 25 needs an access-date.
  • I'm not sure the list of general references or the external link is necessary anymore. I also have seen a "See also" section with History of the Carolina Panthers in it.
I don't have any major qualms with it after those items. Amazing work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Gonzo_fan2007, I believe I've handled all of these except the Win-loss record in table. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean in the coaches column? Toa Nidhiki05 02:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, in the coaches column. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. That should be the last one. Toa Nidhiki05 04:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no more comments Toa Nidhiki05. Kudos to you for knocking this out so quickly! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of colonial governors of New Jersey[edit]

Notified: primary author is banned so not notified, DavidinNJ, WP Biography, WP Lists, WP New Jersey, WP USA

The original FL nominator back in 2013 was ColonelHenry who has been banned for hoaxing/fake references. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 14#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs and the various FARs for background. This found the FAs written by this user to have massive original research/source-text integrity issues; the sourcing in work by this nominator cannot be trusted. Hog Farm Talk 19:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delist. I see lots of references to offline books. Until someone goes through this article line-by-line and marking what's verified and what isn't, it's better to be safe than sorry. SnowFire (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist. per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist per above; we can't trust the referencing. Hog Farm Talk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Cricket World Cup records[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Cricket, Vimalkalyan (FL nominator in 2007).

This became an FL in 2007 and kept as an FL in 2009, when the standards were nowhere near today's standards. At the time, the article had more focus, rather than today where the article just includes indiscriminate amounts of WP:TRIVIA. Most of these stats are sourced entirely to ESPNcricinfo, which in part is because too many of the stats listed aren't interesting enough to a broad audience to be featured in any non-database publications. And apart from the lead, there is almost no text to explain the endless numbers of tables. Of the main article sections:

  1. "Team records" section is mostly okay, as it focuses on the main records that people would expect to see. However, things like "Kings of league" are trivia, and that one is also unsourced
  2. "Bowling" Overall section has so much junk- like 4 wicket hauls, which are not generally counted (as five-wicket hauls are, and they're already listed) and "Most consecutive matches taking at least one wicket", which is just trivia.
  3. "Fielding" section is mostly okay, as it's concise
  4. "Partnership" section is again concise
  5. "Other" section is basically just being used as a catch all for whatever trivia people can find farming through ESPNcricinfo database. The worst offender being a grounds list which is all English grounds because England has hosted the WC way more times than anyone else. No encyclopedic value to most of these stats

In terms of the FL criteria, my assessment is as follows (pass/?/fail is my assessment of the criteria):

  1. Prose: the prose that is there is acceptable (Overall:pass)
  2. Lead: the text in the lead is acceptable, though some of it is not sourced anywhere in the article (Overall:?)
  3. Comprehensiveness:
    1. it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items- no, as it's just tables without text to accompany it (Overall:fail)
    2. statements are sourced where they appear,- mostly yes, albeit just to databases. Some stats are using WP:SYNTH e.g. for the Australia streak where the source lists 34 matches, but the article claims 27 win streak by removing some ties/no results. Needs a proper source to say they are counted as winning 27 wins in a row (Overall:?)
    3. In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists Not enough text in this article, tables alone are not sufficient in lists, they must be accompanied by significant amounts of explanatory text (Overall:fail)
  4. Structure: lots of tables in the player records section not using {{Sortname}} for player names, so are sorting by the player's country not their surname. No row or column headers which are needed for good accessibility (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Making relevant row headers). Also, too many stats and sections, so difficult to navigate (Overall:fail)
  5. Style:
    1. Visual appeal: Very little text and way too many tables, thus no visual appeal (Overall:fail)
    2. Media files: A few relevant images, though captions could be more explanatory about their relevance to this article e.g. what CWC records do they hold, rather than just saying "This is Ricky Ponting". Images also lack WP:ALTTEXT (Overall:?)
  6. Stability: Some editing due to ongoing 2023 Cricket World Cup, but no edit warring (Overall:pass)

Therefore, it seems clear to me that unless a massive overhaul of this article is done, to focus scope, remove trivia and greatly increase the amount of prose related to the statistics tables, thus article is well short of current criteria to be a FL. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on a first look, the list suffers from being too long and without enough context. I don't feel confident that I understand FL criteria at all, but there are examples of where this list is simply a bunch of statistical tables with pretty flags, many of which have too many columns in them anyway - for example, the run scorers table could easily lose the average, 50s and 100s columns and one of the matches or innings columns; it probably doesn't need the rank column either as there are just five listed and I don't actually see the need for sortability either.

Some the tables (King of tournament, for example) I don't actually understand what they're showing. With some consensus about which tables to remove and a commitment to watch the article we could probably get somewhere close to a reasonable list (and I'm willing to do this alone if necessary), but I imagine this might be better delisted first and then anyone who has an actually commitment to featured listing could re-nominate it perhaps. But there's probably no point even attempting that until after the current tournament is complete Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My take on these issues:
  • I don't think FLCR #3 is an issue; FLs only need annotations where appropriate, but if the tables are sufficiently self-explanatory, no prose is needed, and I've certainly never seen the assertion that a FL needs "significant amounts of explanatory text" (for instance, I worked on a recently promoted FL that lists almost 400 items and has minimal/zero prose outside the lead, and no concerns were raised).
  • The overall list structure is fine but table formatting is a mess (this spills into visual appeal as well). The team records tables are closest to good formatting, but they are missing row/column scopes and table headings, and several inappropriately use rows at the bottom spanning the full width as footers/notes. Other sections are worse (I'm particularly interested to know how the sorting arrows under Partnership were hidden – never seen that and it's definitely wrong).
  • I don't know enough about cricket to know if all of these stats are relevant, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are trivial.
  • References are out of date in many cases; access dates should fall after the most recent date for the section they cite.
It doesn't look like much has changed in the month or so since the FLCR page was created, so I'm leaning towards delisting. But The Rambling Man did a lot to update the list during its first FLRC period in 2009, so I think he deserves a notification and a chance to respond alongside the original nominator. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suppose one option would be to revert back to the last FL state, update the records and then have a think about what else might want to be added? That's probably the least painful version if we want to maintain this as FL Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even then, it's tricky; FLs were not held to the same standard in 2009 as they are now, so there are still issues (missing rowscopes, poor table structures [using line breaks to line up different cells], some MOS issues), and adding four tournaments' worth of stats is no small ask itself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I gave this 15 minutes or so and came to the cam conclusion really. It's possible perhaps to rescue this, but for something that I don't really think has much value anyway, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Delist this and then at least we can gut the worst of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joseph2302, Blue Square Thing, The Rambling Man and RunningTiger123, I have just completed a complete rewrite of this list in order to bring this back up to the FL standards of today. If you could please review and let me know whether you have comments that would great. Thanks – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting is much better now, though it doesn't look like the table footers use proper syntax (they're just regular rows set to sort at the bottom). I am still concerned that some tables are pretty trivial; I'm not a cricket expert, but something like "Highest partnerships by wicket" feels a bit contrived. It is also not clear where the ODI records come from, and the equals sign for ranks can sort incorrectly (see "Narrowest win margins (by runs)" for an example). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1196107682"