Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2021

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Limorina (t • c) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm nominating this article for featured list because I think it meets all of the featured list criteria when it comes to prose, lead, comprehensiveness, structure and stability. I'm not sure about style however because it contains quite a few redlinks. Limorina (t • c) 06:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For a featured list, this is sorely lacking in content. Consider a FL like List of The Mandalorian characters, which devotes several paragraphs for each main character to discuss characterization, casting, and other relevant details. I don't think a one- or two-line description of each character is going to cut it. There are also numerous issues with unclear or overly wordy prose, such as:

• "After Barış Arduç was noted for meeting the producer of Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu, he became one of the famous actors who were expected to join the cast."
• "... the series focuses on the character portrayed by the member of the cast."
• "Sezin Akbaşoğulları appears as Zübeyde Hatun, a character based on Zubayda Khatun, another one of Malik-Shah I's wives, the same is shown in the series."

Additionally, there are many pieces of irrelevant information scattered throughout the list, such as:

• "Gülsoy was noted to have celebrated one of his birthday at the set of the series with his family."
• "Şendil was noted to have praised the COVID-19 precautions made by Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu."
• "He [İlker Kızmaz] is shown as an important character in the series."

For now, I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of information and poor writing style. Given the scope of the issues, I would also suggest requesting a copyedit and finding more information about each character's personality, casting, etc. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limorina are you going to address these comments? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping Limorina again, but their user page says they have retired, so I think this nomination may be stalled. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the nominator is planning to return to this, but I two comments below:

• All refs need dates (if they're available) and it seems a lot have them but are not listed. Refs 1–5 for example
• If possible (it is not required, but definitely recommended) |trans-title= would help a lot with the Turkish refs

Limorina, if you return, please ping me and I'll do a formal source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created the article, it is comprehensive in the history of Memphis head football coaches, and has a lead that is well-sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - thanks for bearing with someone who knows little about the topic (although way back in my student days I was actually friends with someone who played for the university American football team. I was occasionally one of the 20 or 30 people (all friends of the players) who used to make up the "crowd" watching the game - that's how different university sport is in the UK :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think these kinds of lists now look for a lot more info on the topic, e.g. look at List of Arsenal F.C. managers. I'm not sure that other sports should be getting a free pass on this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Head coach

  Fixed.

• In the lede, maybe indicate which coach has the highest win % and/or won the most championships?
• "Postseason play" could use some short explanation or should at least be wikilinked. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is text in the key unnecessarily small? I can't see any reason per MOS:SMALLTEXT justifying this.

  Comment: I agree with you; that is not a page-specific issue as the key is {{List of College Football Program head coaches key}}, so the change would have to be made there.

• Easily done - I've fixed it myself. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the coaches table, shouldn't {{abbr}} be used for the acronyms?

  Lil-unique1, are you proposing this instead of having the key? If so, I'm happy to make that change. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Both could coincide ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, not all references are achived which leaves the article open to linkrot in the future. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The lead does not summarize the entire list well. The second paragraph focuses on bowl appearances, which (a) ignores many other elements of the list and (b) produces a steep bias towards the most recent head coaches. I would add discussion of other elements of the list – longest-serving coaches, most wins, history of the program, etc. – and trim the current information.
  • Also, it might be nice to note the conference with which the program has been affiliated – since there have been times it was an independent, this would clarify why some coaches have no conference records.
• "In addition to coaching at Memphis, McKeen spent nine years as the head coach at Mississippi State, where he earned SEC Coach of the Year honors in 1940." – unsourced and has no clear relation to the topic

  Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this comes from a template, but I really dislike abbreviating "overall ties" as "OT". Most casual readers won't notice the key and will assume this means "overtime", since that is the more common usage in football discussions. I think that "OW", "OL", and "OT" should just be "W", "L", and "T", respectively.

  That would mean that the list and the key disagree; would you recommend removing the key altogether to fix this? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've started a discussion at the template's talk page to address this and the dashes; I also notified WT:CFB of the discussion. If the template isn't changed, we might want to consider removing the template and creating a custom key. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Having blank cells makes the table look incomplete. I would suggest adding "—" to those cells to indicate they are not relevant. You could also put "0" in some columns to clarify if they were eligible to win something or not. For example, you could put a "—" under conference championships for Clyde H. Wilson to indicate the team wasn't in a conference and a "0" for Ryan Silverfield in that column to indicate the team is in a conference but hasn't achieved any titles yet.

  These dashes were taken out at the recommendation of ChrisTheDude above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Archiving the sources is essential, especially since so much of the list relies on a single source.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up: Are you still making changes to the page? It looks like some, but not all of my comments were addressed. (I'm not too worried about the key; we can stick with the template for now unless there is a consensus to change at that talk page.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, thanks for checking back up - I am still planning to improve the page but school has taken a lot of my time recently (coming up on finals week), but once that is over I will have more time to dedicate to this page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – In the second paragraph, Ryan Silverfield doesn't need a link, as his name is already linked at the end of the first paragraph. In fact, you could get away with excluding the first name entirely. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the next-to-last list in this series, and it got one support and no opposes the last time around. Chris, here is the diff (per reviewer requests) since May 1 when you supported, and here is a list of changes specific to this list, the ones you haven't already seen (probably) in the other list. Enjoy. Sturmvogel, per our earlier conversation, you're welcome to review this one if you want to ... or not, I can probably get 3 reviews ... eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I supported before and nothing seems to have changed significantly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Chris. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• I'm a little concerned with the disparity in entries between those people with blue links and those with red ones. I fully sympathize with your desire not to duplicate the info at the blue link, but it does look odd. Especially since I'm not at all sure that everyone that you've redlinked is actually notable.
  • On the question of who to red-link, I'll stand by the answer I gave in the review for the previous list (search for "redlinking"). On the disparity in information ... this is a tough one. I had a canned answer ready ... that this information would be better suited for sublists ... but at this point I don't intend to write the sublists. The main point is: whether the reader will be happy depends on what the reader is looking for. There's a need, not just on Wikipedia but in the world, for high-quality reference material on plant genus names. If the reader wants to use this list to find out who a genus was named for, I think they'll be happy, but if they're coming here for a fact-filled history-of-science tale, maybe not so much. The trouble is: no one is interested in looking up information like this across 20 different pages, just like no one is interested in 20-volume dictionaries (online or off). So, I've been weighing considerations of depth vs. length across 10 lists for about 18 months now, and this is what we've come up with after many discussions with reviewers and others. As I mentioned in the previous review, I can't just add text to 70% of the entries ... I added about as much as could be added in response to requests last time, and if the list gets any bigger, some images will stop loading for some readers ... that already happened for one of the reviewers, early on, and I learned then how many rows and how much text I could squeeze into these lists. So ... lots of questions here, and I'm still open to changes, but after 18 months and roughly 31 supports so far (including source reviews) for this shape and size for the lists, I'm not sure how much wiggle room I have at this point. (And the question of what source we would pull the info from if we did want more info is so hard that that's almost a stopper all by itself.) - Dank (push to talk)
• There's a shortage of links to countries, IMO (I think that Wikipedians generally grossly overestimate the level of geographical knowledge of the average reader), and to some of the botanical gardens mentioned (which may very well not have enough coverage to justify an article)
  • I completely agree that many readers won't know where these countries are. I think (not sure) I'm following the Main Page and FLC standard in not linking any countries, and conversely linking anything geographical that isn't a country. I don't personally care what rule we follow on this ... I guess I'll just ask for now if any other reviewers have thoughts on this. If not, I'll start asking around. - Dank (push to talk)
  • On the botanical gardens, in order: 1. the former university in Harderwijk: the university closed more than 200 years ago. I don't know what conclusion to draw about the gardens. 2. Bogor Botanical Gardens: hitting a dead-end here too. The gardens by this name were founded in 1817; the guy supposedly at some gardens in this city died in 1827, and he's not mentioned in the list I'm seeing of head gardeners there, so I don't know if he was actually there or at some previous or different gardens in the same city. And so forth. I'm not saying it can't be done, more like: I've got a bad feeling about adding a lot of links that I can't defend. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Many, if not most, redlinks use full names when we now use disambiguators to differentiate articles between people with the same names
  • All I'm doing here is, in almost all cases, following the version of the name given by Burkhardt. I've come to trust her judgment in general, but if there's some different source for the names that you prefer, I'll probably have no objection at all. - Dank (push to talk)
• I'd suggest linking the specialized terminology here (botanist, mycologist, herbalist, etc.)
  • I have no objection, but this also was a real struggle and there's no easy answer. Since I have to link things everywhere in the table if I link things anywhere (unlike in unsorted tables and at FAC and GAN), and since reviewers will insist on consistency (including maybe: if I link one specialty or profession, then I have to link all of them), then there will be potential SEAOFBLUE issues in addition to maybe going over the size limits I talked about above. Still: if there's consensus and we don't go over the limits, I have no objection at all to linking all the professions and occupations. I'll leave the question up here for now to see if anyone else has input. How would you feel about a short glossary in the notes covering the professions instead of links throughout the table? - Dank (push to talk)
• Watch your capitalizations for organizational proper names. I saw at least one Indian army
  • Changed to "army in India". I've searched for navy, coast guard and marines and don't see anything else similar. - Dank (push to talk)
• I see no need to list page ranges in your references unless you're referencing a specific chapter or article in that book.
  • My source reviewer asked for that ... OTOH, he did say that maybe he changed his mind later, so I'll go ask him. - Dank (push to talk)
• I'll hold off on the line-by-line review until you've had a chance to respond to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First ... even before I read your comments (and I see that the first one might or might not be problematic!), I'm happy to see you here ... I feel like I'm in good hands. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you prefer my replies interleaved line-by-line or all together? - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also ... I think that one thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about FLC culture is ... there are a lot of smart reviewers here, and a lot who care about various points ... even if, on average, they are more likely to give the appearance of not caring as much about the details than reviewers may give at GAN or FAC. This is my 9th plant list at FLC, and it's entirely possible that I can change a whole lot of things around in this list and the previous lists without much pushback ... but I'm not comfortable with simply making that assumption, I feel like that would be disrespectful. So, fair warning, for any major changes that would affect prior lists, I'm going to be running anything you and I decide on past the previous reviewers to see if they buy the arguments and have any preferences of their own. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way is fine. I looked at the reviews of one of your previous noms and didn't see anything relating to the points I raised above, but I gotta be me. It's been a while since I've done anything at FLC, but feel free to invite previous reviewers to comment on my points. I wanted a discussion about the disparities in the entries as I'm not certain that it is something that truly matters as opposed to what is essentially a consistency issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replied above, let me know what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, could you pull this nomination? Please and thanks. I'm not putting this on Sturmvogel, I respect his work. As I've mentioned, these plants lists are one small part of a bigger project, and I need to spend more time on the other parts and less time on these lists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nick.mon (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During these years, I have done a lot of work on this list, I think I've improved the lead and layout and I believe it meets the criteria. Nick.mon (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – There are only three sources, and all three are in the lead. The lack of clear citations for the body is unacceptable for a FL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy oppose You need inline sources per criterion 3b. General sources can be acceptable too so a large table isn't even more crowded with footnotes, but they ought to be cited at the top of the table or something so it's clear what content goes with which source. I also find it hard to believe that there are zero English-language resources for this, or even online resources rather than 50-year-old books ([5] provides literally nothing but surnames). The prose section is also inadequate and mostly a copy-paste of the lead of Prime Minister of Italy without actually introducing the contents of the list itself. Sorry, I was excited to see this come up and the table is terrific so I hope you'll come back with improvements after reviewing better examples at WP:FL#Heads of state or government. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, "unfortunately", I'm not the only user involved in Italian politics and the format (for PMs and ministers) was decided after a long discussion in another talk page. However I'll try to improve it! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the general format is fine, it's the lack of sources and prose that summarizes and introduces the list that's the issue. No need to change the structure for the most part. Thanks for your efforts. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92: Thank you! I've just added some sources, but I still have to improve the leading section, so I think I'll present a second nomination within a few weeks or months. Thank you again! -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above - sourcing is a long way off what is required of a FL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nick.mon:, given your statement "I think I'll present a second nomination within a few weeks or months"—I'm assuming you want to formally withdrawal this nomination? Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fear that this nomination has been rejected. -- Nick.mon (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manmohan Singh is an Indian economist, academic, served as 13th PM of India from 2004-2014 and the world describe him "a man of uncommon decency and grace." Had worked thoroughly on this list but due to personal issues wasn't able to nominate it for FL. Although I have sourced the list in well way, looking forward for constructive comments. All suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Per WP:CHRONO, the lists should be in chronological order (earliest first) not reverse order
• "Governor of Reserve Bank of India" => "Governor of the Reserve Bank of India"

   Done

• "He is the only prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru, to be re-elected after completing a full five-year term" - no reason for the comma after Nehru, also this needs a source

   Done

• "Singh is also the first and only Sikh to hold the office." - needs a source

   Done

• "Born on 26 September 1932 in Gah (British India) Singh received" => "Born on 26 September 1932 in Gah (British India), Singh received"

   Done

• The lead talks in detail about his career but says literally nothing about his awards and honours, which is what the article is actually about. The lead should talk far less about his career and far more about his awards.
• I at first thought of this but didn't continue because it might turn up filmy article. But it's a valid ask, lead should contain awards and recognition. Will work on it, please allow me a week.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are unsourced rows in the second table
• That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables need colscopes for all columns (e.g. instead of "!Year" it should be "!scope=col| Year")
• The tables need rowscopes for the "primary" cell of each row (e.g. instead of "|2014" it should be "!scope=row| 2014"
• The tables need captions (e.g. where you have "|+" it should either be "|+ State honours" or, since that duplicates the section header, "|+ {{sronly|State honours}}" to make it only show up for screen reader software
• Ribbon images need alt text

• Hello. I am actually not so good with table thing. Can you please help me to solve table errors please.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--PresN 22:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The article appears to have been split by the nominator from Manmohan Singh in 2018; compare the list at the time to the main article's Honors section at the time. The information also remains duplicated today; compare the list to the relevant section in the main article. Per WP:FLCR #3C, a featured list "does not violate the content-forking guideline" and "does not largely duplicate material from another article". Either this list should not exist (since it duplicates the main article on the subject), or the comparable list in the article needs to be removed. I personally feel the list is just long enough to justify a standalone page, but action is required either way. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually not possible to include all information like each and every award and recognition in main article, hence this list is created.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 14:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? Every item in the standalone list is currently included in the main article. This means the list is being duplicated, and one of the two lists needs to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the main article has an awards section so this should just be embedded there. No need for the split. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am very sorry, but the prose in the lede feels dry and monotonous compared to other FLs, plus the fact that some MOS problems persist, such as missing commas, word choice, etc., not to mention that this list is derived from the main article (Manmohan Singh) which the FL criteria is against. I see that you have done a good job on other lists, however. Wretchskull (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for your valuable inputs. Since this list do not fulfil FL criteria, requesting editors close this nomination. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 07:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The is the next-to-last in the series. WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genera named for people (D–J)/archive1 has some discussion. Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Brasilian botanist, specialist in Brasilian Bromeliaceae; worked at the Herbarium Bradeanum in Rio de Janeiro" - Brazilian should be spelt with a Z
• "Brasilian botanist and agronomist" - same again
• "German pharmacist and botanist who traveled and collected in northeast Brasil" - same again
• That's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drat, I get so used to German spellings. Btw, you beat me by a minute, I'm adding 55 rows now ... sorry about that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, fixed all the "Brasils", and I checked alphabetization of the new rows, links, spelling, etc. Hopefully it's good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may help: These are the 55 rows I just added. (Ignore the rows that say "ditto", that's a note to self to fix the rowspans for those rows after adding them, which I did.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, could you pull this nomination? Please and thanks. This 4-part series of lists is one small part of a larger project, and I'm already getting behind on the larger project. The second nomination in this series is turning into a bigger production than I was expecting, and I just don't have any more time to sink into these nominations. But "I'm too busy" is going to sound like a lame excuse to any future reviewers who wind up investing a lot of time on these very long lists, so yeah, let's pull it. ChrisTheDude, very sorry, and thanks for all your help, but hopefully this list won't change too much and we can look at it again some day. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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