Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2022

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, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive, thoroughly documented, well-organized and, to me at least, pretty fascinating as a window into culture and toy history.

Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster[reply]

• Oppose - Clearly this has taken a lot of time, well done on your dedication and committment. I do have some concerns though. The article lacks context, it is in essence an index of jobs that Barbie has had. I also have trouble with that very terminology. Is it about the doll or about the character as she has appeared in anime/Tv/movies? If its about the doll, then dolls do not have professions people do. Dolls are inanimate objects. Therefore is this not about the costumes/outfits and accessories Barbie comes with? as e.g. Barbie dressed as a doctor NOT Barbie as a doctor. All of that aside, I don't think it passes our quality standards either:

1. Barbie's Careers sounds awkward. Is there a better title?
2. Does this pass WP:NLIST? Has the topic of the careers of Barbie received significant coverage?
3. At the moment, almost everything is matter of fact - primary sources saying there's a doctor barbie etc. but no context.
4. The second paragraph is one sentence and reads According to Mattel, Barbie has had over 200 careers, recently including more STEM fields. The word recently is without context, recently according to when?
5. Reference one (The Times article) is missing information like its author etc.
6. Reference five Barbie.mattel.com/shop is a WP:VENDOR source which are frowned upon
7. What makes Barbiedb.com a reliable source? There's no editorial information and its borderline WP:VENDOR / akin to eBay?
8. Is there not an over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources? Where its not Barbiedb.com, its all almost Mattel Global Consumer, which is clearly related to the topic very close.
9. None of the current sources are archived.

Unless I've missed a notability guideline that applies specifically to toys, its my understanding that the WP:RS and WP:MOS would frown upon primary sources, vendor sourcing and it may even border on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! There are a couple of things I'm confused about. When you say "primary sources saying there's a doctor barbie etc. but no context.", what do you mean by context in this sense? Like, more information on why the doll exists, or what sort of context are you looking for? Same with when you say the article overall lacks context, I guess I'm not sure what sort of context you mean. I suppose I'm also confused about why Mattel would be a bad source when the material at hand is about types of careers Barbie has been portrayed as having (I do think "List of careers Barbie has been portrayed as having" would be a better title, fwiw), wouldn't it be good to directly cite the manufacturer? Antihistoriaster (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antihistoriaster Well primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Mattel are the makers of Barbie so of course they will cover their own products. What has not been established is why the careers of Barbie are of notability beyond the fact they exist. That would require independent third party sources.

In terms of context, just because something exists doesn't mean its notable to be written about, WP:NLIST says Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. - although you could argue that Barbie having STEM careers has received independent coverage, NLIST goes on to say Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

In a nutshell, Wikipedia does not allow content to be sourced from Vendors, and if a list or article only exists to be an index of all of the entries in a topic then it probably isn't notable. It's certainly not a FL in my eyes to be sourced almost entirely from Primary sources related to the topic, and certainly not Barbiedb.com which is not a reliable source. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. !Year becomes !scope=col | Year. 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. |1959 becomes !scope=row |1959. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, 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 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no action taken on the oppose in two months, no other responses, and the nominator has not edited since their last comment here. Closing this nomination; feel free to renominate if the independent sourcing issues are resolved in the future. --PresN 14:18, 31 October 2022 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is being nominated as featured list because it includes significant American military figures, as well as others who went on to successful civilian careers. Instituted in 1872, First Captain is a leadership position, the senior ranking member of the 4,400 Corps of Cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. (Not to be confused with the salaried Army enlisted rank of Captain (United States O-3).) Note that the PDF United States Military Academy sourcing for the list of names is only a chronological list of all who have held the position . — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• After reading this list, I still have no idea what the first captain is. How are they selected and why? What is "overall performance" of the Corps – academic performance, military preparedness, general campus concerns? What is the "class agenda"? Is this basically a student body president? At most universities the students elect a leader of the student government who runs on a platform and works with the administration to ensure student-focused programs are funded, expanded, inclusive, and transparent. Does West Point have such a representative student government or how does this compare? You describe the brigade that the first captain leads as being divided into battallion and companies but don't answer the so-what: do each of them have a leader that the first captain herself directs or what?

  @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: can answer this better than I can, but comparison to a student body president is not adequate. This is war college, and the First Captain is the Brigade Commander, with graduates often going directly into combat zones. In short, please see United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. War is their business, so any comparison to student body president at some civilian school, is not workable. All that academic stuff aside, the First Captain is charged with making sure they are prepared for war. But, as I said, Hawkeye7 can probably explain better. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: I found an answer, and a press release, and have posted the info in the first paragraph of Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps The Academy selects the First Captain, as well as its other leadership positions. It doesn't give the details, but it most certainly was via an established criteria set by the Academy itself. Hope this helps explain somewhat. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pratt should be recognized in the lead as the incumbent but her post-graduate majors are irrelevant here

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Establishment of the university" section doesn't seem relevant, please tie in better to the article's subject or remove.

  I think it provides background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely agree on the background info, which is why I put it here. Without that section, non-Americans are not likely to know the why and how of the institution's establishment. And I think it's really important to note when the first women were allowed into the academy. That was a really big deal in American history. It also provides the background as to why no women were named First Captain until 1990. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're not using US-style MDY dates, a comma doesn't ever belong between a month a year.

  How right you are! I had done a pre-nom sweep to catch such things, but must have blinked. I believe they're all taken care of now. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Global influence" is a pretty vague header. Of course top military brass have a global influence, but how does that mean this position has global influence? It's great to note that high achievers at the military academies are often high achievers in the military and that many former officeholders later become generals, but there should be a bit more tying of them together than details like what Pershing did.

  Headings are normally vague. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Removal of "global" still ignores the rest of the comment. This shows that a number of have had significant roles decades after being FC, but not the "influence" of the position itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The position itself has little influence per se outside the Corps of Cadet, where it is a highly-sought after honour among highly competitive people. (This is particularly notable nowadays as the corps is very large, so they tend to be over-achievers). However: the appointment marks the cadet as a likely candidate for future greatness, and this is seen by the high proportion who achieve general officer rank. I created the list because it kept cropping up in biographies. It is also not unknown for First Captains to become patrons of other First Captains, which is important because the US Army runs on a system of patronage. In particular, Pershing took an interest in the careers of other First Captains, hence the run of them as his successors. Graduates are normally ranked on graduation, but this refers to academics, whereas the position of First Captain is based on scholarship, sportsmanship and leadership. As the quote in the article indicates, by first year the cadets have been assessed for a long time. It is not unusual though for them to also rank high in the class, often first like MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig and William Westmoreland all served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" helps with that, but it's missing Summerall, Clark, and Rogers as listing in the table.

  Who was Clark? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Clark — Maile (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I rechecked the source on Clark via his obit. He was Chief of staff of only the Third division at Fort Lewis. I have so noted on the list. — Maile (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any other notes about the first captains' actual service beyond the examples in "Interrupted terms"?

  Hawkeye7 answered this with the section "Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps". Each First Captain has that set of responsibilities, that does not vary from one year to the next. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "All Ameican" typo

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "WW I, WW II" isn't spaced

  Removed abbreviations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Salzman is the only "Brigadier-General" with a hyphen, please check for consistency in the formatting of these comments in general.

  Alas not; corrected them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of inconsistency of U.S. vs. US

  Standardized on "US". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsisency like a simple "Rhodes scholar" for Morales and a wordier "Recipient of a post-graduate Marshall Scholarship" and then "Rhodes scholar scheduled to attend the University of Oxford" that's redundant since Rhodes scholars by definition attend Oxford.

  True, but not everyone knows that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With the comments column, there is value in recognizing their later achievements and major positions, but there shouldn't be comments merely for the sake of being comments for each one. Lots of people get an "MBA from Harvard Business School" or "MBA degree from Stanford Graduate School of Business" (another inconsistency with "degree"!) and that's just not as relevant here.

  Removed some. Will do another pass through.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I altered the column heading a bit to say "Comments/post-cadet career" This could probably be tweaked. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "who retired three times" meaningful? Retired from what?

   Done Note that this is re George H. Olmsted. It's a bit complicated, but I hope I've expanded it adequately now. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really confused why the comment for Robert S. Brown is "AKA Capt. Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown", what does this add to spell out his middle name?

  West Point tends to have similarly-named relatives also attending the academy, especially in the cases of fathers and sons. This one has name variations from source to source. I wanted the reader to understand that this is the same individual who, for reasons unknown, used alternate variations of his name in different time periods. As a cadet, he was listed as Robert S. Brown. But he wrote a journal for West Point under the name Todd S. Brown. And depending upon the published editon of that journal, his name is listed both ways. Sometimes as Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown. No explanation of why. It's confusing, but the only way I could indicate they are one and the same person. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is The class the stars fell on a relevant see also?

  Because it's an FL about the 1915 Academy cadets, 36% of whom rose to the rank of general. — Maile (talk)

There's potential here but there's a way to go, namely that it needs more than "these people who did things after attending USMA held a leadership position at USMA". Back to the student body president question – student body president is *not* a Wikipedia notable position! This being a service academy and the success of many alumni can justify this article, but it doesn't really show it. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep working at it. It would be WP:OR to find their student records while at the academy. Which the academy would not give us access to, even if Wikipedia had no dictate against that. We can only go by existing public information. What makes them notable, is what they achieved after the academy. The whole point here is that a leadership at the academy gave them the skills to achieve notability otherwise.

@Hawkeye7: Do you have time to eyeball the Comments column, and help add pertinent info beginning around 1900-15, if lacking? I've started to add brief blurbs about their military careers. Once we get into the 21st century, cadets serve out their required post-cadet military service, and then go into financially successful careers in the private sector. I think it's important to note that. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓@Hawkeye7: The ball is in your court now. I've given this all I can find, and I think the format and general information is what it ought to be. If you think you can improve on it, then full steam ahead. My intent with the notes column, has been to give a little blurb about the post-West Point path the First Captains took. Overall, that column tells an incredible story of the calibre of people West Point chose for that resposibiliy. @Reywas92: if this works for you, fine. If it doesn't, ah well, you hit the boards running with an Oppose - but overall, you raised some really valid points that led to much improvement and clarity therein. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and Reywas92: FYI - I stepped back from this a couple of days and then read it cold. Coming back to it, I do believe anyone who never before heard of West Point, needed a little more information as to why this is such a big deal. Especially if this is being read by non-Americans. I added a little paragraph at the top of the "Background" to explain its attachment to the US Department of Defense, and how requests for enrollment are handled. I think the application process alone might make the Army, Navy and Air Force academies a little unique. I also expanded the lead section. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• "Holland is one of only seven women cadets...." - per MOS:SURNAME, individuals should not be referred to by their forename in this way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed - Nice catch there. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hasn't been changed as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed for the second time. It was fixed. An editor changed it back while doing other editing. I've made the change again. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres<sp an style="color:blue">N 19:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done*@PresN: If I understand, you are simply talking about the one line right below |class=. If that's what you meant, thanks for reminding me - taken care of. If you meant something else, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for @Hawkeye7: and also whoever does the sourcing review. YouTube is not necessarily a reliable source. But per WP:RSE regarding that matter, "official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed". First captain Austin C. Welch - I just linked him to a YouTube interview video from WCIU-TV in Chicago. The interview was conducted in Dec 2014, the first half of the 2014-2015 academic year. Wikipedia's YouTube guidelines might be a little out of date, inasmuch TV stations and other legitimate entities use YouTube as an outlet. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The First Captain is responsible for the overall performance of the 4,400-strong Corps of Cadets" — Exactly 4400, or approximately?

  It is approximate. Cadets come and go over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "or to the President or Vice President of the United States" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE

 Fixed — Maile (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "were John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and William Westmoreland." — We'd have an Oxford comma in the general American English usage

 Fixed — Maile (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is first women started from a new para?

• Open to suggestions on this, as it was part of an expansion of the lead. Do you think it should be combined with the paragraph above it? If so, that's fine with me. Originally, Hawkeye7 had a paragraph about the latest woman First Captain Holland Pratt. While expanding the lead in general, I just included the other women, as Pratt is the latest, but not necessarily the most significant of women First Captains. I do believe that inclusion of women in the position have been so new - and so few - that they should be mentioned in the lead.— Maile (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, continuing it in the previous para would be better, in my opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — Maile (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The USMA is" — define the the prose the full form of USMA

 Fixed — Maile (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "to US congressional representatives and senators, as well as to the US President and Vice President" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE, and do we have to repeat US that many times?

 Fixed I rewrote the sentence. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "USMA was founded in 1802, through the Military Peace Establishment Act signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson." — This should have been told before describing what USMA does.

 Fixed Switched the paragraphs around. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "on 7 October 1975" — Do we have to be this precise. Will it matter to the reader if we just say 1975?

  Yes, it follows from our prime objective, which is to gather knowledge. Also, it someone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not big deal for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the current Commandant of cadets" — our article capitalizes 'C' in 'cadets'

 Fixed - Good catch! We seemed to go both ways from one mention to another. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " John J. Pershing, was 1886 First Captain" — Why comma?

 Fixed That was an error. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1916, he led 10,000 men" — I may be nitpicky, but exactly 10,000 or, most probably, approximately?

  With such figures, it is always understood that rounding occurs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it is always better to specify. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need that background info about Pershing?

  The point is the importance of the officer and future career. First Captain can be seen as a prophecy of future significance, but it has often been a self-fulfilling prophecy.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why is it important to the reader that he taught in a school in Missouri? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The article might benefit from a copy-editing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: in regard to this comment, I would welcome copy-editing from an uninvolved individual. WP:GOCER looks backed up. Anyway to fast track this? — Maile (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will see if I can get one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig, William Westmoreland and Bernard W. Rogers" — Oxford comma?
• "as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" — add the definite article, and lowercase 'c'
• "the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force" — lowercase 'c'
• "He was court martialed" — our article hyphenates, it. I'm not sure which one is correct, though.

  Depends on WP:ENGVAR. In this case, no hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "There were some unusual cases" — we can start without specifying thin, in Wikipedia's voice.
• "First captains 1872–present" — Add "1872–present" inside parenthesis.
• "List of United States Military Academy first captains of the cadets" — The table caption is repeating the nearby heading. Shift it inside {{Sronly}}
• "Comments/post-cadet careers" could be "Notes"
• Okay, firstly, 'Consistency is the key'. Now, how are we naming the first captains? There is a conflict here. We have "Amos A. Jordon Jr.", but "Carl Columbus Hinkle Jr" (without dot) v. "Ralph P. Swofford Jr.". We have our article calling him "Pete Dawkins", but we have "Peter M. Dawkins" (with middle name). Then why not same for Westmoreland?

  Per WP:COMMONNAME. Names are as they appear on the roll. The MOS rejects the concept of consistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If Ref#3 is repeated in almost all the reference cells, why not just put it in the head of the "Sources" column and not repeat it multiple times?

  Because in the future it will be supplemented with other sources as new first captains are appointed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The references need to be consistently formatted. We have no retrieval dated for many web sources. What makes https://generals.dk/ a WP:RS? "Washington Post" should be "The Washington Post". Why is https://valor.militarytimes.com/ a RS? "Second page can be viewed at Newspapers.com/clip/105068924/horowitz/" — should be a link than bare url. Ref#92 needs a retrieval date. Ref#132 has a page number, why do we not have it for Ref#136 and many others? Many source titles, which are in ALL CAPS, needs to be in title case. All these sourcing issues are really just over a quick read.

  Generals.dk has been removed, as has the Horowitz note. Military Times is a RS, and it reprints the actual citations of awards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it on a quick read. I am not convinced by the sourcing (formatting, and reliability for few as well). Thus I would not support until a source review has been passed. Currently, I'm leaning oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm going to kick this sourcing issue over to you. With the exception of the original PDF source you used to create the list, I think I did most of the sourcing, so it takes a second pair of eyes address the above-mentioned issue. Can you follow through on this item, please? — Maile (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have made some changes. Will be back with more tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, I just looked at this one and I'm a little surprised that it seems to be stalled, because both nominators have a lot of experience with these things and are happy to work with reviewers. I see that they requested and received that copyediting you asked for (from Chris_the_speller, a very experienced copyeditor, in August). If one of the experienced source reviewers can work with them and give them a pass, and if they pass my review (which is pretty standardized, I think you've seen what I do), then how close would they be to getting your support? I don't want to step on your toes here ... if there's something that's just not working for you, please tell me so that I can take a look before I do my review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: thank you for your words above. I'd like to say few things. First of all, I've always considered Kavyansh.Singh one of the easiest editors to work with in recent times. He's been very helpful to me personally. I guess I'm surprised that he came out with a leaning oppose before we had a chance to remedy the issues he brought up. As for other one previous, valid questions that Hawkeye7 and I immediately resolved - and the opposer never returned. Eh ... Hawkeye and I did our best with what we were asked about. I haven't heard from Hawkeye since his last posting above - not here, or either of our talk pages. I wouldn't blame him if he threw in the towel, and just got on with other priorities. If you and Kavyansh.Singh want to resuscitate the review, I'll do what I can. Even if Hawkeye never comes back ... I'm willing. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I like to wait for two supports or one month before I review in general, whichever comes first, but I missed this one. Btw ... we don't have a lot of reviewers, and the ones we do have tend to stick with formats and subject areas that they already know ... it can take many months sometimes to get a list promoted (for everyone, it's not just Milhist stuff ... FLC delegates, me, everyone has trouble if it's not sports or entertainment or something else reviewers have already seen 10 of). It would really help the Milhist nominations if we could get a regular volunteer from Milhist helping out. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reviewed the list and assessed how far is it from meeting the criteria. This one had quite a few issues, and that is why I was leaning oppose. The prose looks better, and the list seems to have been improved. The main reason for me to oppose was the sources, but @Dank, if you are willing to give this one a closer look at the prose, I can provide a thorough source review, and I think it'll be good to go. @Maile66, I rarely oppose the nominations, mostly because it is discouraging for the nominators. I was leaning oppose due to aforementioned source reliability/formatting issues. I'm now happy to strike my declaration and work on this one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I got motivated and got this done tonight.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I'm going to punt sourcing reliability over to whoever does the source review. The only thing I noticed was: retrieval dates sometimes appear and sometimes not for newspapers.com; your source reviewer may ask for consistency on this.
• Reilly McGinnis Rudolph: not sure if there's a problem in the sort order here or not, take a quick look at that. It's sorting under "M" currently, so I'd usually expect a hyphen for that, but the notes say "she took her husband's name of Rudolph upon marriage", so maybe not.

  I just changed the sort to definitely "Rudolph". I had it set at "McGinnis Rudolph", but Rudolph seems better. I guess. There's Hillary Rodham Clinton, who almost always is sorted/referred to as Hillary Clinton. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not a lot you can do about this, but I haven't found any consistency at all in requirements across all of en-wp for how to phrase descriptions of people in a notes column ... even the question of whether sentences need to have periods/full stops (such as "A monument to him was erected at Tybee by his former Military Academy classmates", which doesn't have one). Some reviewers care about this stuff. The argument could be made that you could be more consistent, but I don't like to criticize something when I know that everyone is inconsistent on this, to one degree or another.

  I agree, and I was conflicted as I went through it. Hawkeye7 I'm open to suggestions on this one. However odd this might look, I didn't want to end the notes blurb with a full stop - to my way of thinking, that's incorrect. On the other hand, some of those comments were separate issues and needed some kind of a stop in there. — Maile (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "China-Burma-Indian Theater of Operations 1943": Our article is at China Burma India Theater (i.e. no hyphens). And, you're linking the second occurrence rather than the first.

  Hyphenation is official and correct; that article is in error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "medals/awards": See WP:SLASH.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "With no prior military background, Knight succeeded by participating in every activity offered, and never giving up. His philosophy was that military training is an enhancement of a person's existing character": That sounds like it came straight out of some brochure.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Center,Molesworth England": Missing space and comma

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes you give nicknames ("Fritz", "Todd"), sometimes not; sometimes in the names column, sometimes not; sometimes with "AKA" or "aka" (unlinked, undefined), sometimes not. Consistency please.

  Got rid of the akas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chief of Counter-Intelligence": Counterintelligence, I think

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some inconsistency in what gets mentioned in the notes column. Some have positions listed that are certainly unrelated to their military career (such as "Current President and CEO of PWSC", which apparently is the "leader in new home warranty products"). Some have boring details: "Van de Wall enrolled in West Point while serving in the ROTC". I don't want to micromanage here, but don't be shocked if reviewers ask for a bit more consistency.

  Noted, and I knew it when I did it - just unsure how to handle that. I didn't want to leave the notes column blank for anyone. After all, they were the cream of the academy crop, and should have achieved something afterwards. While some of them continued in the military to one level or another, some pursued higher educations and went into commercial enterprise where they became upper management and/or made a lot of money. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7: if you have any ideas on how to adjust-delete-clariy anything in the notes column, you have my encouragement to edit any and all of them. Maybe they should all be military related. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "There have been several firsts among the first captains.": What kind of firsts? I get that it can be a losing game trying to find some language concerning gender and ethnicity that makes everyone happy in 2022 ... still, it feels like this goes too far in trying to avoid saying anything. Even borrowing "During the academy's first 174 years, only men were admitted." from the text below the lead would work better as the first sentence in this paragraph, I think.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The first image needs an alt caption.

  Done. Also, I removed "thumb" and replaced it in both images with 200px. Not sure why, but if "thumb" is used, the image text does not display on a mouse roll over it. — Maile (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on both sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. Sourcing: see above.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Many thanks, Kavyansh, and great work. Great edits, Hawkeye. I'll take another look when the source review is done and passed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great work, guys. (Note that I punted the sourcing issues on this one ... I'm confident you guys can work it out.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#1 [3] — Per WP:RS/P#History, " unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy ..."

  Replaced with a National Parks Service reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ""John K. Tien | Homeland Security"." — Per the source, the title just appears to be "John K. Tien". Same with Ref#6, we don not need the text after '|' in the title. Automatic citation maker might be responsible for this. Please check this in various other references as well, I am not repeating this issue again, though it exists in other references as well.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#7: We do no need both govinfo.gov and US Government Publishing Office. Just the publisher will work

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#8: The White House should be replaced with whitehouse.gov as the publisher.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#9: Typo in the title?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent whether you have "United States Military Academy West Point", "West Point Public Affairs", or "www.westpoint.edu"; all point to the same site. Currently we have inconsistency.

  Consisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What does '21-21' signify in Ref#12

  Press release id. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We have "United States Congress", "The United States Army", but also "US Army Center of Military History", "US Army Center of Military History". What is the rationale behind abbreviating or spelling the United States?

  Just following the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, internal consistency within the article is more important. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#23: Quite within quotes should be single quotation marks. Publisher, i.e. the Library of Congress should not be italicized.

  De-Italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistency as few publisher/websites are wikilinked, few are not.
• Why is American Rhetoric a RS. And anyways, we can definitely find a better source for directly quoting the speech. Sample: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44641138

  Replaced with suggested source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistency: "University of Chicago" and "penelope.uchicago.edu"

  @Hawkeye7: a little advice need here. On these, I think I just used the Edit Window toolbar template maker on each one. However, "penelope.uchicago.edu", as well a "Cullums_Register", are databases of the University of Chicago. I think they are the same database, but differ by how the Edit Window toolbar read them. Nevertheless they come from the University of Chicago. How should we standardize these? — Maile (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Standardised on "University of Chicago". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is HMdb.org (Historical Marker Database) a RS?

  It is not needed, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistency: Some sources have location, some don't have.

  The MOS says that newspapers should have a location only if it is not evident from the name of the paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Even by that logic, it is not consistently applied. The Evening Sun including many do not have location, and the name does not suggest where it is published. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• www.ncpc.gov should really be National Capital Planning Commission; fws.gov should be United States Fish and Wildlife Service

  This has been done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#57: "p. 1}. Retrieved 26" — stray }

• Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious: Why is The Dunn County News notable enough to redlink?

• Removed red link. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is biography.com a RS? And we can easily get a lot of scholarl work on General MacArthur. Hawkeye took it to FA level, they much have some scholar source to support the fact.

  Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#89: Check the publisher

  AFI is the website for the American Film Institute, which following a 1965 mandate from President LBJ to preserve to the legacy of American film heritage, was established and supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Ford Foundation. It is known as the AFI, and the link was from its catalog. In this instance, it verifies that Major Raymond G. Moses was an advisor on the film about West Point. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#119: Fix the UPPERCASE in the title

  Fixed — Maile (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

50% of the sources done. More to come a day or two later. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Continuing:

• Inconsistency — Ref#120: "United States Air Force"; Ref#123: "US Air Force"

  Done - Ref 120 changed to "US Air Force" — Maile (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#127 seems to be missing various details, like author ("Sorley, Lewis"), Publishing date ("14 Jul. 2022"). Just check the "Cite" link on the site. Also, the website parameter should be replaced by publisher "Encyclopedia Britannica"

  Done — Maile (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Dinoto Funeral Home a RD?

  @Hawkeye7: Can you find a source for Capt. Stanley L. Smith (USCG-Ret.)? I only found the obit.— Maile (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - Replaced with the 1969 West Point register, which gives enough details as a source. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#132: http://www.mainegavemany.com/index.html does not appear to be an official cite. Why is it RS?

  Well, it was a photo of a newspaper clipping. However ... I have replaced it with the exact same newspaper clipping, but from Newspapers.com — Maile (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#133: "Washington Post" should be The Washington Post. And what is "No." signifying in the reference?

  Added "The". Also, the "No" seems to be what our Cite News template shows when "issue=" is filled in. I changed it to "date". — Maile (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Military Times is sometimes italicized, sometimes not. Consistency is the key.

  Fixed. Thanks for catching. It was only one instance, where it was inserted as "newspaper", while the others are "publisher". — Maile (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#145: check the title. And 'bioguide.congress.gov' should be 'United States Congress' or 'US Congress', whichever you choose for internal consistency in the article

  Done — Maile (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#147: 'Truman Library' should be 'Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum'

  Done — Maile (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#151: 'www.bradwellinstitute.org' should be 'Bradwell Institute'

  Done — Maile (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "For What They Gave on Saturday Afternoon" a RS?

  Removed. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#164: Now Facebook definitely is not a RS.

  Replaced with newspaper clipping.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#165: Why is this public records database reliable enough to be in a FL, "believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia"

  I am not citing its Wikipedia page. The link is to their database which has a page on the incorporation of Robert H. Baldwin Jr's company. — Maile (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll AGF. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#166: has both 'www.army.mil' and 'US Army'

  Removed www.army.mil

• Ref#167: Missing Retrieved date.

  added date — Maile (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#170: Why is [4] a RS?

  The site is a book publisher, and Pattison's bio as one of their published authors. Are you saying a book publisher is not reliable? — Maile (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I swapped that source out with Pattison's author listing on World Cat.

  Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#173: Linkedin definitely not a RS.

  Removed — Maile (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#174: 'Graduates, United States Military Academy Association of' is not the author.

  Done — Maile (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#186: Check formatting

  Fixed — Maile (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#209: Why is this a RS?

  Removed — Maile (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#220: Check formatting

• Kavyansh.Singh having removed 209, I believe this one must be 219. However, I see nothing odd about the formatting of the source on either 219 or 220. What am I missing? — Maile (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing publisher. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maile and Hawkeye, can you please take another thorough look at the reference formatting and reliability. The issues I have picked are really not difficult to find; anyone with a good grasp of MOS and policy can figure these out, you both definitely could have done that. I'll take another look whenever the list is ready. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for this, and I will have another look through the sources. It's kind of on my head, because I might have done most of the sourcing. I vaguely remember grasping at straws on some of it, just so we would not have a non-sourced entry. That being the case, @Hawkeye7: maybe you ought to do a real eagle-eye look though. I'll have another look also, but another set of eyes won't hurt. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been really busy IRL. Just checking in, are we good for an another look at the sources? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to RL priorities, you're going to have to finish this up with @Hawkeye7:. I'm not able to devote the time to take it all the way to the end. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I can do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 10 October 2022 (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) 22:12, 23 October 2022 (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, 24 October 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because for the last review I got a pass from the article reviewer and a pass from the source reviewer, but the article only got two votes, therefore not having enough to pass. I am sure this meets the criteria per the last review and am renominating the article in hopes of getting more votes. See last review here ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is a little brief for such a long article, per MOS:LEAD.
• "amount" -> "number"
• "that appear in the series are " include, rather than "are"? And why cherry pick these ones?
  • If I do not cherry pick wont the list of name become quite lenghty
• "before in The Mandalorian and has also" overlinked.
• "back to life.[21][11] Rich " ref order.
• " ship Slave I back and" overlinked.
• "Ming-Na Wen portrays" ditto.
  • Another editor and I in the last review agreed that it is ok to keep this link here in case someone reads just that section
• TV Insider's -> TV Insider's (check the markup here if it's confusing.
• "protagonist in the series The Mandalorian.[39] In" overlinked.
• "and Salvador Larocca for Marvel Comics" overlinked.
• "Comic Book Resources' Brenton Stewart" overlinked, and see formatting with the {{'s}} template here and elsewhere.
• "Lucas' film American Graffiti.[128][129][19]" ref order and "Lucas's".
• "two or less episodes in The Book of Boba Fett and are considered to play a significant part" fewer, not less, and considered by whom?
• "of ComicBook.com described" italics or not? Be consistent. And don't overlink.
• "comedian Amy Sedaris performs" overlinked.
• "Britt of Inverse said that " ditto.
• "the Star Wars: The Bad Batch series" ditto.
• "considered to be minor characters or make a significant cameo" considered by whom?
• "conversation with ComicBook.com, Rodriquez" unlink this dab.
• Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references, should be spaced en-dashes.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been fixed except for ones I put responses under and I'll get to the last one later. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question where is the guideline that says I should change the hyphens to dashes in citations. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DASH. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: - are you able to resolve the issues across this article and List of The Mandalorian characters? Another editor is attempting to (badly) merge all the content from this article into the other one and this one isn't likely to get promoted to FL if all of its content has been merged elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Do you think the best way about this would be to remove the content from over there because it is not the list of The Book of Boba Fett characters, but it is the list of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my preference. I tried to sort out the other article earlier, but I didn't realise quite how much of a mess it was and I ran out of time before I had to go out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have finished all you have said except for the ones I had questions for. Also @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the issue at the List of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2022 (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) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (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) 00:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Iaof2017 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and is well written as well as reliable. Iaof2017 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• No article should start "This is a list...." - find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence
• The lead is incredibly short at less than 800 characters. Is there really no more that can be said?
• More to come........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaof2017: Per the instructions, "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.". As you already have Rita Ora discography nominated, this nomination needs to be closed for now. --PresN 16:23, 6 October 2022 (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.