Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2021

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): CodingCyclone ^{[citation needed]} 19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... This timeline of the 2019 Atlantic hurricane season was worked on by many different editors. Upon finding this list, I realized with the help of Drdpw that it is ready for an FLC. I will address all comments/concerns, but most of the work has been done by other editors. Thank you for your time. CodingCyclone ^{[citation needed]} 19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this list is far from becoming an FL. I would not rate it anything above C. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a good list, and the flaws are very few. I agree with Hurricane Noah: the article needs a little editing but otherwise looks good. ~ AC5230 talk 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

• If you are going to mention Lorenzo in the lead with Dorian, you should explain what it did too. Noah^Talk 13:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Another thing... add alt text for images. Noah^Talk 15:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hurricane Noah: I believe that these have all been addressed to the best of my abilities. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Notes 1 and 2 are identical so could be combined into one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: I tried to do that, but for some reason when I open the editor it shows that they are the same note. For reference, I'm using the visual editor. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I'm sorry for pinging you again, but I just wanted to let you know: LightandDark2000 showed me another way to do it. The notes have now been merged. Thank you for your comments! CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'll try to have a full look at the article later today........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "By convention, meteorologists one time zone" - think there's a word missing here
• Last entry under September 23 is missing a full stop
• First entry under October 2 randomly ends in a comma
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Hi there! Thank you for the comments. These have all been resolved. Your input is greatly appreciated. :) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 23:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KN2731

• Don't bold 2019 Atlantic hurricane season in the first sentence, according to MOS.
• According to the description at Template:Main, it seems more appropriate to use {{broader|2019 Atlantic hurricane season}} instead of {{main|2019 Atlantic hurricane season}}.
• Use en dashes for ranges instead of hyphens (e.g. 5–9 hurricanes).
• Missing capital M in ref 8.
• Perhaps mention which local time zones are used and where?
• I feel like there could be more images or track maps in the body.

~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @KN2731: Thank you for your comments! These are pieces of advice that I will certainly use in the future. The only one that I couldn't do was the one about time zones, since I can't find a source for that. If you do have something for that, feel free to tell me :) CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 03:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, moving to support. For the time zones I did find a graphic on page 3 of this but since the boundaries aren't explicitly mentioned it may be considered original research to mention them, so I won't push for its inclusion. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): LOVI33 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fits the criteria. I first created this article last year but I have spent some time this year fitting it to the criteria. I have used other song lists as references for this article and I have made sure this uses reliable sources. Any comments would be great! LOVI33 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• File:Roskilde Festival Dua Lipa-13.jpg: there is some funky stuff going on in the Deutsch description of the file.

• I've replaced it. There was some sort of template there that I didn't understand. I hope the new one looks okay.

• What's the difference between a single and a promotional single? Isn't a single inherently promotional?

• Promotional singles usually are released to promote sales of another project (usually an official single). For example, "Future Nostalgia" was released to push sales of "Don't Start Now". Not all of song list article differentiate between promo singles and non-singles. Do you think I should remove the key for them?

• I wouldn't recommend using color-code keys to indicate tracks served as single or promo single; that makes the tables feel overly single-centric, and this isn't supposed to be a singles discography. You'd be better off using keys to highlight whether something was a cover of another person's previous work. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:J Balvin 2015, Austin (cropped).jpg, File:20161119 블랙핑크 멜론뮤직어워드 (1).jpg, File:The Black Madonna at All Points East Festival 2018 (cropped).jpg, File:Miley Cyrus Primavera19 -226 (48986293772) (cropped).jpg, File:DaBaby - The Know Show.png, File:Martin Garrix @ Web Summit 2017.jpg, File:Chelceegrimes.jpg, File:Calvin Harris - Rock in Rio Madrid 2012 - 09.jpg, File:Tove Lo (1) By Daniel Åhs Karlsson.jpeg, File:Madonna by David Shankbone cropped.jpg, File:Chris-martin.jpg, File:Julia Michaels (cropped).jpg, File:Singer Miguel 2013 2.jpg, File:Kylie Minogue - Summer 2019 - Step Back In Time Tour - Castlefield Bowl - Manchester - 11.07.19 - 236.jpg, File:MNEK Glatsonbury Festival 2014 by neal whitehouse piper cropped.jpg, File:Seanpaul01.jpg, File:Mark-Ronson.jpg, File:Songwriter Emily Warren.png, and File:FKA twigs (16391770926) (cropped).jpg all need Template:Personality rights at the Commons like File:Roskilde Festival Dua Lipa-13.jpg has.

• Added in.

• Perhaps link "middle eight" in note 2 to Thirty-two-bar_form#Middle_eight

• Added.

• I believe more references are needed generally, for instance there is nowhere mentioned that Sonny Bono wrote "Bang Bang" in the reference provided, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything should now be backed up.

Thank you for the comments Therapyisgood. All have been addressed. LOVI33 17:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much better looking now! It's enough for me to support. I made one minor change here since 2014 isn't her first professional endeavor overall, just when the musical part of Lipa's life began (she did some modelling beforehand). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is ready to become an FL in my opinion.--NØ 03:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I finished with the previous 6 lists (see User:Dank), I thought I was done with these ... then I discovered that Lotte Burkhardt did some phenomenal work in 2016 and 2018 on plant genera named for people. That tipped the scales in favor of writing 4 or 5 more lists ... and maybe, hopefully, there will be a longer series of lists to follow. AFAIK, her work has never been translated into English, not even snippets ... until now, by me. The main purpose of this list is to connect her work and other academic work with Wikipedia pages in various languages (usually English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). When I couldn't find a suitable page on any Wikipedia, I checked Wikidata, and the results of that search are on the talk page of the list. It may be that this sails through FLC, or it could run into difficulties ... either way, this is submitted for your approval, and your feedback will be important. Unlike in the previous lists, these lists represent (for me) one of the ways that good science gets done in the 2020s ... I hope you feel the same. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr, I just found out that Template:Interlanguage link uses "expensive parser function calls" (mentioned at the top of that page). That's a potential issue in long lists, such as this one. Working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude and Aza24, apologies, I've just made a change after you two okayed the list, replacing all the interlanguage links. My {{ill}} links were pointing to one or two non-English Wikipedias, in cases where the en.wp article on an author is red-linked; what I'm doing now duplicates the function of using {{ill}} with its Wikidata parameter, that is, the second link now sends the reader to the last section of the relevant Wikidata page, with links to other Wikipedias and to Commons, Wikispecies, Wikisource, etc. I now think this is better than what I had, because it sends readers of the English Wikipedia to a page that's in English, and it includes all the links they might find useful, not just one or two. But I didn't make the change because it's better, I did it because it's necessary: as you know, I like to cram as many rows in as I can, stopping just short of the point where the page is so long that images stop loading for some readers, so that I don't need too many pages to cover A to Z. I just found out that {{ill}} has a warning about its "expensive parser function calls", and I need to avoid those. What I lose by tossing {{ill}} is that the second link doesn't magically disappear at the point where the relevant article is created here on en.wp ... but it's not as important now for the second link to disappear, because I'm not sending readers to a foreign-language Wikipedia any more (I'd be happy to manually remove them as needed, or leave them in.) Any questions or problems with this? - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there doesn't seem to be much uniformaty in which Wikipedias have links for which articles, the decision makes sense to me. If this were a Chinese history list and every missing article had site links when they all have Chinese articles, that might be an issue, but this type of scenario doesn't seem to be present here. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "portrait of Christoph Jacob Trew" caption is missing a capital letter
• Identical image of Alice Eastwood is used twice in the article
• "French agricultural engineer and head of the French colonial administration in Madagaskar" - last word is spelt incorrectly
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was fast! All fixed, thanks. Hope you enjoyed it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mess about :-) Now happy to support. Don't suppose you might have a few spare minutes to look at this one? Not to worry if not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to review it, but these days I prefer to wait until someone has mentioned that they've looked at prose specifically ... I'm taking a break from the TFA job and that seems to be translating into taking a break from prose work in general. Btw, I inadvertantly left a few rows off from this table, I'll be adding them within the hour ... I'll try not to screw it up and give you extra work :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, no worries -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments from MeegsC

• Some of the pictures don't have alt text.
  • All of the images have the "alt=" parameter, and almost all of them have text after that. Whether there should be text and what the text should be continues to be something that some Wikipedians (not me) like to fight about. But my position is "the reviewer is always right" ... if you can pick out some of the blank ones that you think would be improved by alt text, I'll be happy to try to oblige. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I'd answer this, since I'm not sure MeegsC will since it was just a drive-by, and honestly after following your FLC's for a while, I'm really disappointed in the effort gone to the alt text on these images. Examples include man, seated, flowers, flowering plant, portrait of a man, residential building, tree to name a few (or in some cases multiple images). None of these descriptions tell me anything about the images used, and what they contain to any great extent. Certain ones while minimal at least give some detail to what the picture contains portrait of Rear Admiral Bligh in uniform, plant with berries small palm tree and some of them are just nonsense to people out of context like inflorescence. There are at least ten images that are missing alt text here as well, all of which are easily found using the alt text tool in the toolbox for the nomination.

What's more I went through some of the other lists you've nominated to find alt text just plain missing, the alt= are there, but there is no description of the content of the picture at all and I'm honestly shocked that not a single person has brought it up before. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different people have different views of alt text. I try not to start any fights, and I try to be responsive to the reviewers I get. Do you plan to submit any of the previous 6 lists to WP:FLRC to de-feature them over alt text, or are we just looking at this list? - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC) (I'm asking because I think those 6 lists are special cases. In those, each image is a plant, sitting there looking like a plant, usually without any relevant context. In the current nomination, we've got images of people, which is a different matter. If you can tell me what kind of alt text you're looking for in the plant images, that will help get us started.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text rules are complicated and not agreed upon, especially for more decorative images like here. Remember that it's alt text + caption, not just alt text, so it's not just "man, seated", it's "man, seated; Daguerreotype of Adrien-Henri de Jussieu". WP:ALTTEXT says "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text", and I'd argue that pretty much every image has a caption that "describe[s] or identif[ies]" the image. That said, again per ALTTEXT, none of them should be blank, as otherwise screen readers will try to read out the image file name instead. The question in my mind, then is: is "flowers, Aaronsohnia" enough of a description? Alt text is supposed to describe what an image is, not what it looks like, so that caption does that well enough, in my opinion. --PresN 18:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding too. Does everyone agree that captions and alt text for people and places are, in general, more problematic than the ones for plants? If so: would anyone like to suggest alt text for some of the people and places? We can't always get people to agree on the best alt text, but it doesn't hurt to try ... and if it becomes clear that the positions are far apart and not getting any closer, I have no objection at all to pulling problematic images. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, grrr, I may not be up to speed here. I thought that the point of adding alt= (in cases where the caption is sufficient without alt text) was to avoid the bug of the screen reader reading out the name of the image file ... following the links at WP:ALT, it appears that alt="" may now be necessary to avoid the screen reader bug. If anyone needs more than that, let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another list from Dank... it never ends... you better name a plant genus after me for this... :) Aza24 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not source related; I'm not a fan of "see ..." it kind of defeats the sorbability for the column (as all the Bolusafra ones don't sort together), I would suggest just copying the same entry over.
  • Really, really appreciate your work on source reviews. I admit that my way isn't the usual way of doing it, and that there are reasons not to do it my way. I'm teetering between "I trust your judgment and it's not a big deal" and "Consistency (database systems) is important, on and off Wikipedia". (And given that anyone can edit, and most people aren't too careful when they edit, and identical lines provide no clue that there's a separate line with the same information that needs to be updated, it will take about two seconds for the list to start contradicting itself if we do it your way.) Give me a few days to mull it over. If I change the sorting parameters so that "See X" always sorts just below "X", does it become a non-issue for you, or are the aesthetics still wrong even if it sorts right? - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just occurred to me (not enough sleep) that the usual solution at FLC for problems like this is to combine cells. It's not a perfect solution (in this case), and it makes formatting a little harder, and it won't fix the consistency problem, but there's value in doing things in the format people are expecting to see ... and it's probably prettier. I'll think it over when I get up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm collapsing cells where possible, and otherwise getting rid of "see ...". That should work for now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks great! Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• New Jersey should probably have a city like the other refs
• Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew seems to be the only ref you don't have a location for, worth adding?
  • Added Princeton. Kew location is almost certainly London so I added it, but I can't guarantee it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Is there a really a need for "See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ for license."—
  • 1. If you're saying that I should say this in a more compact way, or use a different parameter ... sure, I can do that. 2. If you're saying we shouldn't mention licensing at all ... I realize it's not one of the parameters at {{cite book}}, and that seems unfortunate to me (and maybe hypocritical, given that we're Wikipedians and we expect people to respect our copyleft license? Not sure.) But I'm fairly ignorant about source review issues. Does it ever cause problems to mention that a source is copyleft rather than copyright?

Verifiability

• I can't remember if there was a reason in the other lists for this (or if it happened there) but why no page numbers for so many of the citations? If it's because they cover a lot, maybe a page range could be included? It is a big dubious to point readers to an entire book for verification, even more so when this list is only for A-C people Aza24 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giants and other reviewers seem to be on board; see for instance WP:Featured list candidates/List of plant genus names (D–K)/archive1. Two issues: 1. This list, and my sources, are alphabetical reference works (except for Christenhusz, who starts off with an alphabetical index ... and he's rarely used in this list). If you're looking something up in a printed dictionary, do you ask for a page number or look it up alphabetically? 2. Most readers aren't going to put up with a list spread out over many pages, for the same reasons that people are turned off by multi-volume reference works. So I'm cramming as many rows as I can get into each list. Adding templates to every row reduces the number of rows I can have before some reviewers start noticing problems with page loading (in particular, the images stop loading correctly). - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but that's not really what I meant. If the sources are alphabetical, surely there is a smaller page range that covers all of them? What I'm wondering is if you can put the page range for all the entries in the citation in the References, not as individual templates for each entry. Does that make sense? I understand your sentiment, I think, but this seems less dubious than essentially citing an entire encyclopedia, and I don't think it's too much to ask...? Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I see. Done, I think. I omitted "A-1 through Z-12" from Burkhardt; as a reader, I wouldn't know what that meant. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I'm having doubts about my comment above... oh well :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

• Could the lede be expanded further?
  • Thanks for the review. Here's my thinking: this lead is the same length as the ones in my 4 genus lists that are FLs, so I think people have been okay with the leads so far. This list is intended to fill a void on the web as a reference work ... I'm hoping people will use it to look things up ... and I'm thinking they won't want a long intro, because then they'll feel obligated to read it in case it has unintuitive instructions or disclaimers, when what they really want to do is jump straight to what they're looking for ... no one reads the instructions in a dictionary unless they think for some reason they have to. I can say more, I guess, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Is there anything specific you'd like to see? - Dank (push to talk)
• Why are the lifespans and occupation/importance of the namesakes only sometimes included?
  • Good catch ... if you've clicked on the hatnote you'll see that all the lifespans are included there, even when there are blue links ... I intentionally did it two different ways to see if it prompted a request to do it one way or the other .... do you have a preference? Other than dates, when there's a blue link, I'd prefer not to repeat (or worse, contradict) the information available at the link ... this isn't a matter of appearance so much as knowing what tends to piss Wikipedians off ... in this case, a long list of bio material by one editor from just a few sources that contradicts or supplants the work of many Wikipedians from many sources, collected and hashed out over decades in some cases. (Also, there's already about as much text as the page will hold without causing image-loading problems for some readers, and I want to focus readers' attention on the entries that need more attention. But these are secondary points.) - Dank (push to talk)
    • Up to you in the end. Not a huge issue. ~ HAL333 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Does the futher reading The Names of Plants contain anything relevent that could be included in this list?
  • Gledhill is an excellent source, but in all my previous lists, I haven't made specific reference to him except in special cases ... and, generally, I found that those special cases don't occur in these lists. There are better sources for these things. I can remove him from the Further Reading if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I would keep it - it doesn't detract from the article. ~ HAL333 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would cut back on a few of the images. They, at least on my screen, continue past the references section and create a large blank space at the bottom...
  • Sure. I found that on any large screen at any zoom, and on small laptops screens at a zoom of 110% or higher, the pictures didn't create white space at the bottom, but I'll be happy to trim a couple. - Dank (push to talk)
• For consistency, I would link Uppsala, London, and Madrid.
  • Great work ... done. - Dank (push to talk)
• Since Queensland is linked, also link Burgundy.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)

That's all I got. Nice work as usual. ~ HAL333 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for reviewing. Sorry I've been distracted with my own work for a month, I'll watch FLC more closely now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—I've been quite busy irl as well. And, I'm happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The phrase "including many women and non-Westerners" in the lead feels off. I fully understand the sentiment, but I think it's unnecessary. I personally think it's better to cut this; as it currently stands, it makes it seem like this should be unexpected, which doesn't help to normalize the inclusion of women and non-Westerners in the field.
  • Done.
• No need for the table of contents at both the beginning and end
  • I'm happy either way, but this is my seventh plant list at FLC and the previous 6 had it in the See also section, so I'd need to check with previous reviewers before removing it ... happy to do that if you want me to. I did it that way following the example of some of Wikipedia's botanical lists, for instance, List of botanists by author abbreviation (A). (And IIRC, at least one reviewer either commented on it or requested it, that's why I'd have to go back and ask.) - Dank (push to talk)
    • In that case, leave it; it's not a huge issue, and consistency is more important. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Christenhusz is not the only author of Plants of the World, at least according to what I can see. All of the authors should be listed.

Otherwise, great work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the review! All done, except for my one question above. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of awards and nominations received by Harry Styles for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all awards received by the artist, and is sourced, well-organised, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time in expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. For reference, I've used both List of awards and nominations received by Meghan Trainor and List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa. I look forward to the comments. Ashleyyoursmile! 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I now support following its improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Lirim | Talk 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

--PresN 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PresN, thank you for the notice. I've added a hidden caption to the table. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have updated the list to include past nominations, and have expanded the lead along with archiving sources. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• H Jon Benjamin should sort under B, not J (his surname is Benjamin, not "Jon Benjamin")
• That's all I could find :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All  Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - good article. I had never previously heard of this show but maybe I will check it out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments

Lead

• Bob's Burgers: The Movie should only be mentioned if you anticipate including potential awards/nominations for it here (I wouldn't recommend it)

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "season" instead of "production cycle" in the lead - more accessible, used in source, consistent with other show pages

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I count nine Outstanding Animated Program Emmy noms in the table but the lead says eight

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You should note at the bottom of the lead or right above the table that the listed years refer to when the awards were presented

Is there another list with this included? Haven't heard of people asking for it so just wondering. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock has a note in the lead and Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Animation has one right above the table. The WGA article actually lists year of airing, not award. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as mentioned below, the 30 Rock list might not be up to today's standards, and the articles I've mentioned that have reached FL didn't require a note. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about List of awards and nominations received by The Good Place, promoted in January with a footnote? Stepping away from consistency for a moment, would you disagree that a note could be helpful to readers? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I wouldn't. Note has been added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table

• Probably, all the Annie "Best..." awards should say Television instead of TV to reflect the Annie's official name, otherwise the 2019 Annie nom for The Bleakening should say TV instead of Television for consistency

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2013 Annie "Best..." award didn't have "/Broadcast" in the name (supported by your source and the Annie site)

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue the Libera awards for the album are outside the scope of this list, otherwise

• The Creative Packaging award went to: Sub Pop (for The Bob's Burgers Music Album) and
• The Marketing Genius award went to: Marketing Lead Jon Strickland (Sub Pop) (for The Bob's Burgers Music Album)

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WGA awards don't seem to have reliable naming style but other wiki articles seem to have settled on "Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Animation"

Am I supposed to change it? "Television: Animation" doesn't tell a reader much more than "Best Television Writing in Animation". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a puzzler! A reader who hasn't run into your phrasing before might check the source and the wikilink to the WGA awards and question why neither contains "Best Writing..." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Changed to "Television: Animation" as seen in this article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Table would be more readable without Bob's Burgers repeatedly linked; List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock handles this by leaving the nominee column blank when it's the show and only listing episode titles

 Not done per consistency with three currently promoted lists (for Better Call Saul, BoJack Horseman, and Brooklyn Nine-Nine). The example you gave was promoted in 2008, so I'm not sure if it's still reliable or up to today's standards. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work on this list! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I have responded to your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: I have responded to your responses. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I have responded to your responses. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Re:re:re:re:comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Re:re:re:re:re:comments. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Looks great! Feel free to collapse this section if you want.

• Support Well-referenced, comprehensive, and clean. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Go Heels! (Not really relevant, but ...)
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present. I'm not good with sourcing on articles like this one, but the other reviewers and the source review are likely to catch any problems.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image can't be a copyright problem because it doesn't meet the "originality" test for copyright.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly two years, I've been nominating lists of species in Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), covering all of the families of animals in the order that could support a list. Above them, however, was a parent list: List of carnivorans (ex. List of species in order Carnivora), which was a simple bulleted list of all of the species in the order. It couldn't be supplanted by the child lists: 4 of the 15 families are too small to support a list, and the concept of "everything in the order" made sense. But a list that had 11 "main" templates and 4 tiny sections wasn't much use to readers, nor was a mile-long duplicative series of tables. So, we arrive at a capstone FLC: Instead of duplicating the child lists by using the same tables to cover all 285 species, we pull back a level to match the scope going up a level, and have tables covering the 129 genera in the order Carnivora, letting viewers see the relationships at that level with child lists to drill down further into individual families. I hope it is interesting to read! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good choice to do by genus!
• "different" before "body plans" is superfluous
• Collage selection is nice
• Subfamily Ailurinae (Gray, 1843) – one genera" and elsewhere: should be one genus
• "Members of the Canidae family are canids, and include..." and similar elsewhere shouldn't have a comma.
• "Members of the Mustelidae family are mustelids, and are composed of" It's not 'members are composed of', should be 'members include' like the others
• I see the pattern for those with multiple species but it's not clear why some genus names have a common name under them and not others
• I think the diets overuse the word "Primarily". I think it can generally be assumed these are not exhaustive or exclusive lists of everything they can eat. Heck, you can leave off the "eats" and just have a plain list without being a sentence. Though looking at some of the other lists this is used in all of them and I'm surprised I hadn't noticed it before.
• Odobenidae: lowercase walrus

Looking forward to supporting at FTC as well! Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Addressed all issues, thanks for the compliment! The common names are where the genus has one (and has more than one species); most don't- for example, Canis includes both some wolves and the coyote and golden jackal; there's no common name for the group. It's uncommon enough that I'm willing to drop the whole thing as being awkward for readers. --PresN 03:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would otherwise suggest removing the parentheses and putting the common name with every genus but yeah since many don't have a single one maybe someone else has a suggestion. Nice work, Support. If you have a chance, a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Carnivora can be divided into two suborders: the cat-like Feliformia and the dog-like Caniformia, which are differentiated based on the structure of their ear bones and cranial features." - is there a ref for that sentence in the lead, particularly the last clause? I can't see it sourced anywhere in the body of the article (everything else not cited in the lead seems to be covered by citations in the tables)
• I can see both "molluscs" and "mollusks" used - personally I didn't even realise it could be spelt both ways but better to be consistent on one or the other
• That's all I got - fantastic work on this list (and the whole topic)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Now cited; fixed spelling to "molluscs" - that's the 'correct' scientific spelling (since the genus is mollusca), even if 'mollusks' is a used variant, and it was actually a typo- I didn't realize the k version was a thing and my browser's spellcheck didn't flag it. Thanks! --PresN 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nothing caught my eye. Admirable work. ~ HAL333 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and thank you for making these lists so wonderful. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support passes my source review --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Since this is mine I can't promote it without a signoff from you (since Giants is still off) that it's okay. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN sure, I'll take a look first. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Plenty of duplicate links, even in the lead, e.g. cats, dogs, Eupleridae, Viverridae, Herpestidae ...

• Removed the duplicate links in the lead and overview sections

• Why is only one sentence of the lead cited?

• Most of the lead is a summary of the tables; the part that isn't (how Caniformia and Feliformia are differentiated) is cited. There was another sentence, but that should have been cited outside of the lead and now is.

• "Caniformia" is sometimes capitalised mid-sentence, sometimes not, what's the approach?

• Should be capitalized, now is

• "'divided into 14 genera and placed inside a single extant subfamily, Caninae" vs "Subfamily Caninae (G. Fischer de Waldheim, 1817) – thirteen genera" i.e. 14 v 13.

• Fixed, and checked all the other sections for that as well

• "tail (Wolf)[10]" in sentence case, no need to capitalise.

• At first I had wanted them all to be capitalized as it's not quite a sentence, but as per below I drifted away from that. Now all in sentence case.

• "neritic marine" what is that?

• Moved link to first instance

• "plus 1 cm (0 in) tail" unhelpful conversion.

• Removed unhelpful 1 cm conversions

• "Racoon" typo.

• Fixed

• "(brown bear) " etc, you have previously capitalised first word of these names... Quite a few of these.

• Fixed per above

• "composed of a two extant species" eh? And one shown.

• Fixed

• ISBNs should be consistently formatted.

• They are (well, fixed one that was off)- ISBNs are formatted a-b-c-d-e, where each section isn't a consistent length but the total length is 13. I formatted all of these using the Library of Congress ISBN formatter.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you so much! Some embarrassing inconsistencies here. All fixed now, I think. --PresN 13:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the greatest actors of his generation. This list describes his roles in film, television and the stage. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries - support. What a shame this is one list that won't need any updating going forward........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing a caption.

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

--PresN 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Added table captions. Cowlibob (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on some 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. At a glance, the article seems well-sourced to reliable sources ... I'm not good with film sources, but they seem to be okay for what you're using them for. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). Refs 16 and 30 need retrieval dates; the other relevant retrieval dates are all present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list noms every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This looks like a well written career history of PSH. I cannot see errors or glaring issues with this list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard (9 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really a big deal so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review! Mattximus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is note i written correctly? Same goes with note o and v - not sure the second "and" is needed.  Done
• I would rewrite note j San Gabriel was renamed Venustiano Carranza between 1934 and 1993. The "between sounds like the date of renaming is sometime within a date range.  Done

That's all. Solid work. I'll go ahead and support given the above is addressed. ~ HAL333

• Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be back to do a source review, but some non-source comments first:
• An RFC recently passed a few months ago asking for captions on all tables (MOS:DTAB)  Done
• The pictures look rather odd on my screen, on my smaller screen they're stacked 2 on top of 3 on top of 1; on my bigger screen they're stacked 4 on top of 2–both leave huge white space, and looking very awkward. I don't really know what a solution for this would look like, but the current formatting is less than ideal
  • Part of the issue here is this is all happening before the table—a.k.a the main part of the article—creating a weird buffer in between

• Yep I see what you mean. I experimented with a bunch of different formats, this seems to be the best one for my screen, how does the new format look for you? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's better but still a little awkward—I think the root of the problem is the second, Municipalities of Jalisco image. I see some of your other FLs (though I haven't checked the all) don't have such a map, perhaps remove? Though it is a cool map, the fact that its without labels for the various municipalities makes its actual helpfulness negligible imo. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Yep that did it. It fixed it on my screen too. Since it's unlabeled, I agree that it serves little value. Mattximus (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really get the lack of TOC; if the vertical one is messing up formatting, why not add a horizontal one.
• Otherwise seems solid. Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is very strange, I see nothing in the code indicating the removal of the default TOC. I have no idea why it was removed. Do you know how to get it back? Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe articles with 3 or less sections makes the TOC not show up, in that sense I would suppose it's alright to not have one. However, if you're so inclined, you could add __FORCETOC__ or for a horizontal one, simply, add {{horizontal TOC}} anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the info. I tried adding the FORCETOC and I see now why the default is no TOC with 3 sections, it looks kinda funny. But I don't hold a strong opinion. I'm inclined to just leave it off as the default recommends. Mattximus (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I have two questions for you above. Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly ping for User:Aza24, wondering if you had a chance to see my two questions above? Mattximus (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping! I forgot to add this one to my list to check back on Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Aza24 for your great suggestions! I believe all your concerns are now addressed. Mattximus (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support Aza24 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem like a niche list to work on, but it has a purpose, or at least had one. Beethoven's 250th anniversary was last year and I was trying to get this as the TFL (for 17 December) but only got as far as a DYK... Oh well. Anyways, Beethoven's central status in the history of Western classical music has made him the subject of a lot of monuments. And I mean a lot—so this is a dynamic list; regardless, I'm confident I have entries for the most important and well-known monuments. Another point of interest might be the 45 or so busts by Antoine Bourdelle; I opted to limit them in a separate list as to not overwhelm the main list with entries by them. The list should be fully sortable. Thanks in advanced to any who review. Aza24 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dynamic list template should go before the list, not at the top of the page
• I think a more appropriate title would be List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven. Like the Beethoven House has eight sculptures of him, but they aren't all individually monuments. "Monument" is not necessarily a synonym for "three-dimensional artwork of a person".
• The "Type" category isn't that clear: all of these are sculptures, including the busts and statues, so there shouldn't necessarily just be a subset of them called sculptures. E.g. it seems to me the one at Plaza Lavalle looks like it would be a relief, and at Alter Zoll is a statue. I guess some of them aren't as categorizable but this needs some work.
• "arist" typo
• " supposably" is not a word
• Three links of types are actually links to the specific artwork. This is not expected and should perhaps be linked in the location instead.
• I don't mind the splitting of the Bourdelle works (which are likewise generic artworks and not monuments per se), but seven out of "at least 45" is very incomplete. Although generally it may be hard to say for sure "this list is complete" and that's permissible, this seems quite inadequate for an FL. Unless it's it's redefined to be specially "monuments" and not just any old sculptures, which would remove several in the main list too, this section should be more comprehensive.
• I take pause at the Unexecuted monuments. For example the Friedrich von Amerling and Drake ones were just an alternate proposal to the one by Hähnel that was chosen. Surely many of the other monuments went through multiple design proposals too, so this also suggests a greater degree of incompleteness. They should be included at Beethoven Monument but I'm not so sure about here.

Reywas92^Talk 03:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reywas92 many thanks for your comments. I've addressed your minor ones (though I will note that supposably is a word—but certainly not the right one, in this case).
• I will ponder over the unexecuted monuments suggestion, though most of these are important enough (e.g. they have some history behind them, perhaps I add some notes to each of them?) that I would advocate their inclusion.

• Yes notes are nice

• For the Bourdelle works I actually forgot that I only had 7 (they're hard to find, as there's not list of them anywhere I could find) so I will surely add plenty more when I have time.
• As for the other two points (type & article name) you seem to be stumbling onto two problems I've pondered over myself, but struggled to find a satisfactory conclusion, so maybe we can help each other here:
• For type, my goal here is primarily to be able to sort busts, reliefs and (probably) statues; as you say some are ambiguous, so I've opted for the equally ambiguous "sculpture", any advice here would be appreciated, but I'm really not sure if there is going to be a perfect way to go about this.

• Maybe whatever can't fit into the other categories would be "other sculpture"?

• The name used to be List of statuary of Ludwig von Beethoven but I moved it. I would disagree with your interpretation of the word "monument"—OED says it is a "A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." which seems to cover the content... I'm not opposed to changing it to "sculptures" should that be a more direct title, but I would aim for keeping the reliefs. Busts and Statues are surely sculptures; our relief article says it's a "sculptural technique" so I am left unsure. - Aza24 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, statues with pedestals and plaques or other public commemoration would be a monument, but the regular sculptures and depictions don't quite fit that, like not every sculpture in a museum is a monument. Yes, reliefs are definitely sculptures to be included.
• An additional comment would be that unknown artists don't need gray backgrounds. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reywas92, sorry for my untimely update. I believe I've addressed all of your comments now; I pondered over adding notes, but decided such information would be better for the artist's articles, and it looks odd to have notes for the unexecuted, but not the executed. They're all included in the lead anyways. Aza24 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with the reviewer below that the flags aren't really necessary, otherwise support Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to Support. ~ HAL333 21:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the change of title to "List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven", which better reflects the scope.
• Presumably Karlsbad would be a more appropriate name for Karlovy Vary in 1929?
  • Changed
• "A large number of busts reside in the Beethoven House" – MOS:ART advises against "currently resides in", and I think this is a bit too close to that. Possibly change it to something like "There is a collection of busts of the composer in the Beethoven House"?
  • Good catch, adjusted this
• There are more public sculptures, including architectural sculpture, here – I count twelve sculptures there which aren't in this list. de:Liste der Beethoven-Denkmäler has works in the Pasqualati House, the Walhalla, Cuxhaven, Hradec nad Moravicí and Teplice which aren't here. The Royal Philharmonic Society in London has this bust by Johann Nepomuk Schaller, and its many contemporary copies are covered here. Also in London, the Royal Academy of Music has this marble bust by Hähnel (as well as one of the plaster copies of the Schaller). Have you looked for sources for everything in c:Category:Sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven and its subcategories?
  • Thanks for these, I'll add them and give you an update when I do, I had already gone through the German list and added all I could find sources for. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After a bit of digging I've found a source for the Walhalla bust: search for "Kat. Nr. 13" in this doctoral dissertation. The attribution seems to be Arnold Hermann Lossow after Anton Dietrich. Here are some more: La Scala, Milan; GAM, Turin – which is a cast of this sculpture in Milan; a Bourdelle in Bonn; Beijing; a full-length photo of Beethoven in the Wind in the Musée Bourdelle. Ham II (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be more specific locations for Fernkorn's bust and Klinger's sculptures in Vienna and Leipzig.
  • Done
• The majority of authority control files on Wikidata refer to Jacques de Braekeleer with a lowercase "d" and, where the sorting of his name is indicated, sort it as "Braekelaer, Jacques de": Union List of Artist Names, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon Online, Benezit Dictionary of Artists, Christie's. I should note that both the Dutch-language files (RKD and Inventaris), like the Dutch Wikipedia article you've linked to, do have "Jacques De Braekeeler", but "Jacques de Braekeleer", sorted under "B", seems to be the majority English-language usage.
  • Agreed and fixed
• There's an online source for another Bourdelle here. This seems to be the book that covers all Bourdelle's works on the theme of Beethoven. This seems to be the current catalogue raisonné for the artist, and this seems to be the most recent one in English – in case either of these books is easier to get hold of than the first. I appreciate that these would be very difficult to check at the moment. Is every relevant sculpture currently at List of works by Antoine Bourdelle covered here?
  • I looked around for a catalogue raisonné as well, but found them not easily available. I've added the one you found and yes I had gone through the works list. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there anything to be said (in the lede, not the list itself) about mass-produced busts of Beethoven? They do seem to be "iconic", and they certainly come up a lot in pop culture: 1, 2, 3. Ham II (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay Ham II, I looked in a book about Beethoven sculpture and couldn't find anything about the pop culture appearances. I think I've addressed your other comments though, and added the appropriate works. Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources don't cover this, that's fair enough. I've never looked into Beethoven's reception history before (art history is my field), but I am struck by the popularity of plaster busts of the composer. I still count nine works on vanderkrogt.net that are missing here: at the Alte Oper, Frankfurt; the Grand Théâtre de Genève; the Conservatoire de Musique de Genève; Graz; the Staatsoper Hannover; the Frieze of Parnassus on the Albert Memorial, London; Nuremberg; the Latvian National Museum of Art; and Uffenheim. I've added the Walhalla bust. Ham II (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the image improvement and ref adjustments, I give my support for the nomination and media review passes. While I would also prefer not to use an image multiple times here, that's not enough to keep me from saying it's ready to become FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive list! Only very minor things:

• In the introduction, we have two Vienna in a row.
  • Sorted
• I don't care about the little flags, especially since at Beethoven's (and some artists') time, these flags didn't yet exist.
  • My rationale is that the location column might be confusing otherwise when sorted. Usually when columns are sorted, one expects to see a clear group of items, but since these are sorted by country (and the specific location or city is put first) I was concerned that this might not be obvious enough without the flags. Maybe this makes sense? Otherwise, if you still disagree, I'm open to removing.

    Well, we are used to sorting by year having a date fist, and by surname, having a given name first. You could also explain the sort. For me, the little flags are both sometimes wrong in history, and always a little coloured distraction from the artwork, but that may be just me.

• How about "Liszt and Brahms"?
  • Done
• I wonder if we could have a link from the introduction to the monument in the table, instead to other articles, which could be reserved to the table entries. Just an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's tempting... but I'd rather not complicate the table anymore, if that's okay...?

    I'll tempt you further by doing it for one. It won't change the table appearance, so be only additional bits in edit mode.

    I did it for the first. If that doesn't tempt you enough consider how great it will to link to a position in the table from elsewhere, especially for sculptures without an article, for which you can make easy redirects, such as List of sculptures of Ludwig van Beethoven#Klein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ... or easier Beethoven sculptures#Klein --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I'll adapt it, great idea! I need to get of WP now but will do so in tomorrow and let you know. Aza24 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've responded above Gerda Arendt, many thanks for your (as usual) helpful comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support excellent list, as it is, and sure can get even better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I made one little fix which it was easier to just do than to point out here, and am more than happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Jovian Eclipse (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Staunton is an English actress. Recognised internationally for portraying Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter film series, Staunton has earned numerous accolades in her forty-year career including four Olivier awards for her work in London theatre. Jovian Eclipse (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, my pleasure. GagaNutella^talk 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – from what I can tell, this is your first FLC; well done! RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables are missing a caption (they have the line but it's empty).

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

--PresN 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks PresN! Jovian Eclipse (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant you should put in an actual caption, like Awards and nominations, not table caption. --PresN 22:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN Oops! My bad. Fixed it :) Jovian Eclipse (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): GagaNutella^talk 01:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I was not active here during ASIB era, but recently I have done some edits to improve and finally promote this list. It is very comprehensive, listing down all notable awards with reliable sources. I talked to Debyf, one of the top editors and he agreed to this nomination. A special thanks to him, IndianBio and Arlandria Ff for their effort to keep it updated during that time. GagaNutella^talk 01:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I now support, and the media review passes as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, personally I don't think it is correct, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MaranoFan

Looks good to me. Just one minor comment: I don't think everyone would know what RTHK stands for so list the publisher as "Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK)".--NØ 06:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaranoFan: well noticed! Thanks for your support. GagaNutella^talk 14:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• From a quick Ctrl+F search, it looks like there are only 93 wins, but the infobox lists 106. Double-check the infobox to make sure it matches the table. This was my mistake – I forgot about runner-up, 2nd/3rd/... place, and so on – so the comment is irrelevant.
• Remove the Gold Derby Awards; they do not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Derby Awards (2nd nomination)).
• Source 8 is misrepresented (at least when I read it); Alfonso Cuarón received six nominations for Roma, so implying that Cooper's five nominations were a record is misleading. It was simply the combination of awards that was unique. Reword this so that the wrong implication isn't there.
• The Category column has sorting issues for "Behind the Scenes" Promo, The Best Selling Soundtrack Album (should sort by "Best"), and The Don LaFontane Award for Best Voice Over (should sort by "Don").
• For the Clio Awards and Promax Awards, it would make more sense to use templates like {{won|place=gold}} in the Result column instead of writing "Gold Winner" in the Category column.
• Guild of Music Supervisors Awards and PGA Awards don't need to specify "for A Star is Born".

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments, very necessary. I have addressed all of them. GagaNutella^talk 15:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Great work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

--PresN 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Hey, I've added the caption. Thank you! GagaNutella^talk 17:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a rescue of an un-sourced filmography created in 2005, with very little context or sourcing since then. Given that Humphrey Bogart was an iconic figure during his lifetime, and a film legend ever since, I decided to clean this up and source it. Let's see how it measures up by FLC standards. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• Don't have time for a full review right now, but two things that immediately jump out are as follows:
  • There is no reason for the abbreviation "misc" to be used in a section heading - write the word in full

 Done — Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Towards the end of the article, prose is suddenly abruptly replaced with bullet points. Turn these into proper prose.

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will look at the article properly later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]