Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another animal list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the genera of the two families in the mammal order Lagomorpha and sitting on top of list of leporids (FL) and list of ochotonids (FLC). In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (which was the capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora) and list of artiodactyls (which was the capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla) (and unlike list of perissodactyls, which was too small for sublists). Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", has 73 species all over the world, though the two families look a little lopsided here since all of the ochotonids (pikas) are in a single genus and the rabbits are more spread out with 11. This should be the last capstone list for a while- after this it'll be mostly single-list orders, since most of the remaining larger orders are really gigantic. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to quibble about :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I also have no issues, very nice. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review—pass: nothing problematic this time! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* "recently gone extinct" → Perhaps link extinct? "molecular phylogenetic analysis" → "molecular phylogenetic analysis" "into named clades" → Link clade and perhaps add a gloss like (group of all the descendants of a common ancestor) For all the monotypic genera, just write "rabbit" in the common name instead of "rabbits" (eg Amami rabbit instead of Amami rabbits) What reference is supporting the cladogram? It isn't the best illustration, but consider adding CaprolagusHispidusJASB.jpg for Caprolagus. That's all. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goood, why did you have to make me blush with the lead image ;-;

But anyways, comments: GeraldWL 17:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Members of this order are called lagomorphs. Lagomorpha currently comprises 107 extant species"-- kind of a weird repetition when read, "lagomorphs. Lagomorphia". "It" can be a good replacement for the latter, considering the previous sentence is "Members of this order are called lagomorphs."

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the larger rabbit and hare group and smaller pika group"-- multiple use of "and"

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "11 cm (4 in) long"-- shouldn't this have hyphens? Like "11 cm (4 in)-long"? Most likely not, just wondering.

• No, it shouldn't have one; there's some examples at WP:HYPHEN that show it, though it focuses on not doing e.g. "11-cm long" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The domestic rabbit subspecies of the European rabbit has been domesticated"-- I suggest a link to the last word, as having two words of "domestic" that are unrelated to each other is just weird.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Leporidae, containing the hares and rabbits"-- I suggest changing "containing" to "comprising" for consistency, and "containing" just sounds kinda off in context.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "families" be linked?

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 73 extant species of Leporidae"-- extant duplicate link

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link cottontail rabbits

• Sylvagus (linked just prior) redirects there, since it's the common name for the genus (I prefer to link to the formal genus names when possible for consistency, since most genera don't have articles at their common name). --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should digit-ize "thirty-three", "twenty-seven", and "thirty-four", considering you wrote 12 in digits; plus many people including me have trouble reading numbers above 20 in words.

• Done, was trying to be consistent but I agree it's a pain. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the bullet lists, shouldn't each of the animals be linked?

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, within the conventions and classification sections, you might wanna link "genera", "extinct", "extant", "order", "Lagomorpha", and "families". The body is a whole different part of the article than the lead, so typically relinking is needed.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by Mammal Species of the World"-- perhaps a lil bit description of the work? Like "the book" or "the reference work" etc? Don't want readers to keep on tapping links.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Members of the Leporidae family"-- assuming my previous point on the linking is implemented, this link here must be removed as duplicate.

• Done. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table, the Oryctolagus image is also the same as the lead image. Isn't it a kind of repetition? I suggest changing another image for the table (not for the lead please I love that lead image so much)

• Swapped the table image, hope you like the new one too. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also for the Oryctolagus row: the map images have two colors but you only highlight one as relevant; is there a way the orange can be removed? Also I don't think it's pink, more like purple.

• Oh, looks like someone made a new version of the image a couple weeks ago that changed the color. Mentioned what orange is for instead of removing it, I think it's notable that it's not native to most of its range --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this is a clearer picture for the Romerolagus, what do you think?

• Agreed, changed. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Annamite Range in Southeast Asia and Sumatra"-- but Sumatra is part of SEA, though (i should know i live here). That sentence also implied that the Annamite also comprises Sumatra but the article says "Laos, Vietnam, and a small area in northeast Cambodia".

• Ah, yeah, that was worded badly. One species is in Sumatra, and the other in the Annamite mountains (in Laos and Cambodia, aka in SEA); reworded to "Sumatra and the Annamite Range in Laos and Vietnam" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks so much for the detailed review! Addressed all of your points, sorry for taking so long. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good now, and that new Oryctolagus-- ajfvksjdbcdcs how can I not like it! But anyways, it seems like this article is all good now, so Imma support. Good stuff! :) GeraldWL 02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --PresN 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PresN, not a full source review, but just noticed that there's several uses of pp. for single pages in the refs that should be corrected. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: Thanks, not sure how I missed all those. --PresN 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments on my review are welcome. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

• "come in two main groupings of body plans," Recommend wikilinking body plans; as a non-biologist expert, I do not know what this means so the wikilink might help. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Classification" is ref 1 verifying all the information in this section? If so, I recommend that ref 1 also be placed after "Modern molecular studies indicate that the 12 genera can be grouped into 2 families." to clarify that it is verifying the introduction sentences.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Both done, thanks! --PresN 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references used appear to be both reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. This source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:56, 27 April 2022 (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 Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 28 April 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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a little list, and not too much to say about it. Thanks in advance for any comments to help improve the list. There were informal ranking lists a few years earlier (from late 1973), including both professionals and amateurs, produced by a panel including Joe Davis and Ted Lowe for a bookmaker; I'll include a mention of those if reviewers think it's worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I thought these articles are more suitable to not have a bold title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not actioned - I know other Snooker world rankings featured lists don't have this but (barring it being against MOS) I'd prefer to keep it if it's not a required change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• seeded first and the previous year's runner-up was seeded - no need for the second "was seeded". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the 1976-77 snooker season - hyphen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• World Champion gained five points, the runner-up received four, losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two, and losers in the last-16 - could probably be a bit more simple. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Has been reworded but let me know if more work is needed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• points, points - repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The eight-highest ranked players were placed direcly into the last-16 round of the 1977 World Snooker Championship - need to explain the alternative. If you weren't highly ranked, you'd have to play additional matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Indidentally, when the list was published, the idea was that the top 8 would be in normal seed positions in the draw, those ranked 9 to 14 would be drawn at random into last 16, and everyone else would play in the qualifiers. With many lower-ranked players unhappy about this, there was a WPBSA vote two weeks before the draw that came out 11-10 in favour of changing it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Table needs some rowscopes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended - not sure if I've done it right though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably need to explain what "-' means in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need for Main article: 1976–77 snooker season at the top given that it's linked in the first sentence
• I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm.
• What makes "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive", which seems to be some random dude's personal website, a reliable source? If it is, there's no need to show the URL in the reference, just the site name would suffice
  • Pop-in note - Chris Turner, who wrote the website is the guy who used to do the statistics for both the BBC and Eurosport. I've used it in several FAs, it far surpasses WP:SPS, deemed a "snooker historian". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: Clarify that the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is professional snooker's governing body

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: "losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two," - try and use different words to replace the ones that are highlighted in bold

• Amended the sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: "The same points system, using results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had been used" - repetition of "used(ing)"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rankings prose: with the total number of point" - typo; points

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rankings prose: "A "-" symbol" - the hyphen should ideally be an en dash per MOS:DASH as it is in the table

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Higgins Infobox: Consider adding alt text to the Higgins image

• There is some, unless I've misunderstood. Perhaps it could be improved? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Table: Think the title atop the table could do with expanding

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 4: The issue number for The Times reference is 59917

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 6: Mention that Lowestoft is in Suffolk in England for clarity

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for this list MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, MWright96. Hopefully I've addressed everything you raised, but let me know if there are any points where more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Have nothing further to add MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• I agree with Lee, the bold title does not look good here, incorporating it into natural prose would be better.

• Reworded, but I'm happy to rework it further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had" → "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975, had"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The alt text for the Higgins image doesn't need the comma.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it, not much to say here. AryKun (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, AryKun. Let me know if there's more to do. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating Michael Jackson albums discography for the featured list because it is sourced, well-organized, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my second featured list nomination, and I look forward to the comments. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Most album details appear to be unsourced (the chart histories may contain this info, but that is not clear at the moment), and the chart positions for the video albums are completely unsourced. Also, many sources have access dates from 2009 or 2010, so how can they cover albums released throughout the 2010s? Make sure access dates and archived pages reflect recent updates. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Initial comments No reason for a capital on Extended Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] No reason for a capital on Remix Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "It peaked at five on the Billboard 200 album chart" - same again Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] No reason for capital on Silver Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Epic Records, then known as CBS Records" - that's not true Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "spawned two number-one singles on the billboard hot 100" - needs a capital B Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album to peak" => "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album peak" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "At the 1980 Grammy Awards, it was nominated for two Grammy Awards" - any way to avoid repeating those two words in the same sentence? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The source does not support the above claim  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Jackson winning Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male for "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"" - not relevant, this article is about his albums, not his singles Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's what I got on the first two paragraphs of the lead, will look at more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] More comments "the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart, which spent a record 37 weeks at number one" - the chart did not spend 37 weeks at number one Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Seven singles were released. They all reached the top 10 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart." - these two very short sentences could be combined into one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "eight Grammy Awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards" - again, try to avoid repetitive language Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "while "Beat It" won Record of the Year" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "eight American Music Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards" - as above Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "The single "You Are Not Alone" was the first song in history to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "and is the best selling multiple-disc release, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time" - this badly formatted sentence fragment repeats the sentence before so should be removed Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Title of Blood on the Dance Floor should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Not sure "skyrocketed" is really an encyclopedic choice of word Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Essential Michael Jackson should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] And so should the two albums in the last sentence of the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] More comments The table heading "Compilation" should be "Compilations", as there is more than one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "albums at least 18 months old, have fallen below" => "albums at least 18 months old which have fallen below" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Here, a list of his albums reached a major position in this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" - this is very mangled English. I would suggest "The following albums appeared on this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would also join that list to the one in the next sentence. It makes no sense at all to separate out those which reached a "major" position and those which reached a "minor" position, especially when some of the minor positions are higher than one of the major positions!! Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "List of officially released compilations and other albums not charted in the table" is a terrible title and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Is it just "albums which don't appear in any of the tables above"? If so, why not? Albums which did not chart should still be listed in the same table as equivalent albums which did, so for example all the Remix Suites should be in the same table as all the other remix albums...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comments on refs Ref 2 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 9 is some random guy's self-published/print-on-demand book. There must be dozens of better refs for that statement. Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 10 does not list the author of the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 13 - what's "George"? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 15 shows the name of the RIAA in full, whereas an earlier ref shows the initials Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The title of ref 28 is not "archived copy", it also lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 42 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 43 lists no publisher for the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 44 is also self-published, so not an acceptable source Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The chart history portion of ref 55 does not exist Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 65 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 72 has the same issue as ref 9 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 82 uses different date format to the rest (as do some others) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 83 has two different date formats within the same ref! Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 101 - Nielsen Business Media Inc. is not the author's name Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 102 - author's names are the wrong way round Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 109 - why is Parool.nl wikilinked, when it doesn't have an article? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Refs 120, 121, 129, 144 are just bare URLs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 122 has "via allmusic.com", different to all the other AllMusic refs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 125 is missing almost all fields Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 138 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 143 is another self-published book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Refs 146 and 148 (and some others) show the author's name with forename first, unlike the rest Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Quite a lot of formatting work to do on the refs, I fear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Quick comment - ref 11: Condé Nast is a company, not a person, so shouldn't be listed as the author -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (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.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as I see no other lingering issues at all. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see this, as I'm a relatively new MJ fan ever since my brother got interested in his songs. This looks like massive amount of work, which I applaud, but of course at a cost of some flaws which I found. If they're all resolved I'll happily support this nom. GeraldWL 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Why cant those links in the See also hatnote be moved to the See also section instead? Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I suggest using the original crop of the infobox image, since the current one's blurry Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "HHe followed the debut album with Ben in the same year. It peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Kinda repetitive, suggest "In the same year, he released another album, Ben, which peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me and Forever Michael. These two albums were released in 1973 and 1975 respectively." --> "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me (1973) and Forever Michael (1975)." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records. Jackson's fifth studio album, and the first with Epic Records, Off the Wall, was released in 1979." --> "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records, and released his fifth studio album, Off the Wall, four years later." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Remove the links on the texts "Billboard 200", "9x platinum", and "Billboard Top LPs & Tapes" as they're duplicate Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "It won a record-breaking eight Grammys at the 1984 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year. Jackson also won a record-breaking eight Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards." This can be shortened to "It won a record-breaking eight awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards (where it won Album of the Year) and the 1984 American Music Awards." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean? five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Bad was certified 11× platinum by the RIAA. With sales of over 35 million copies sold worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." This can be shortened to "With a certification of 11× platinum by the RIAA and sales of over 35 million copies worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive. Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released with Michael in 2010 and Xscape in 2014." --> "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released: Michael (2010) and Xscape (2014)." Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] The table caption must be in title case. For example, "List of Studio albums" --> "List of studio albums" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think the format types should be linked at first mention Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] You should probably add Template:Abbr in the abbreviations, for example {{Abbr|WW|Worldwide}} which creates WW Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] You can omit the abbreviation in the section heading, I think it's too specific and the table caption handles that well Gerald Waldo Luis Is that necessary? I think one editor asked me to add it because it's necessary for mobile phone users. Feel free to correct it or me if they were wrong.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I opened the mobile version, and I also have the Wikipedia App. None of them omit the table caption, so yeah. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I think "List of Compilations albums" must be "List of compilation albums" without the s, considering our article for it is called Compilation album. Keep the section name tho, the s is valid there Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I've worked in an electronic store for two years, but I've never heard of "CD/DVD". Mind clarifying? Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] The references are inconsistent. For telegraph.co.uk, you have "Daily Telegraph" in one reference but "Telegraph" in another. You also need to determine whether you want the publication name to be linked or not. Also titles that are in foreign language must have a translation in the "trans-title" parameter. Gerald Waldo Luis The telegraph issues are fixed. Can you please provide the reference numbers where the publication and a trans-title parameter are needed?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sure, it's ref 60, 107, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 161, and 165 for the trans-title. There's also some other foreign-language citations without a language parameter. For the publication, you have ref 2 (CNN), ref 7 (RIAA, which must be referred to by its full name), ref 10 (Simon), ref 11 (New Yorker), ref 15 (Grammy.com must be changed to Grammy Awards), and many more unlinked but in other places linked. There's also consistency: ABC News is in =website at the first citation but is =publisher on others. The list is honestly exhaustive, so I can help you fix it if you want. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Gerald Waldo Luis I am open to any assistance on the remaining issues and bettering any part of this article. Please, be my guest. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Gerald Waldo Luis I have fixed the publication issues and added trans- title parameter for references 60 and 106. I don’t believe that the remaining need a trans-title parameter since they do not have a title in foreign languages. Please have a look at my edits and please provide the reference numbers if there are more issues. Thanks.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sorry TheWikiholic for the delay; it looks all good for me now! GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that Jackson released two posthumous albums, he wasn't alive to do that...

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparable figures should be all numerals or all words (numbers of each type of album...)

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "later known as The Jacksons" for consistency, shouldn't that be "the Jacksons"?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "still part of The Jackson 5" etc etc.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was certified Gold by the" you've mentioned "certification" before. so the link should be there and not on "Gold".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " on the Billboard Pop Albums Chart and " consistency needed on format of Billboard here. Check all others.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "both the U.S. and the Australian ARIA charts" this implies that there are ARIA charts in the US.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "U.S.’ best-selling album for two years" awkward, perhaps "best-selling album in the United States for two years"

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album's success set the standard for the music industry" what does that even mean? And the linked article relates to the success of the Thriller video an its impact, not the album per se.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What is ref 36 supposed to be saying?

Reference 36 is supposed to say that the album was certified 8-time platinum by RIAA.

• You have "5 million" and "six million" in the same paragraph. Be consistent and compliant with MOS.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has sold over six million copies" the source says "reportedly six million".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and The Essential Michael Jackson" why is "The" outside the link?!

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "until at least 2017" it's 2022, so what now?

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead reviewed. Plenty to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Please have a look at my edits, and let me know if I missed something. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since his death, ... posthumously released" — doesn't these both mean same?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jackson made his debut at the age of five" — which year? 1963?

No, 1964. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the same year" — remove 'In'

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was certified Gold" v. "was certified silver" — Is there a reason why 'G' is capitalized but 's' is not?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "four years later in 1979" — In this particular case, I don't think mentioning year is important. We know 1975 + 4 = 1979

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It influences artists" — Should be in past tense, I think

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "9× Platinum" v. "34× platinum" v. "11× platinum" v. "8× platinum" — check capitalization for all of these as well as others

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart" — Italicize Billboard?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A 5 paragraphed lead is bit too long. MOS:LEAD advises lead to be generally no longer than 4 paragraphs.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For all those empty cells, wouldn't it be better to just add a center aligned em-dash?

Kavyansh.Singh I've referenced a few FL discographies, and none of them use center-aligned em-dash in empty cells like sales or certifications.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#8: needs en-dash instead of that hyphen

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#54: "Michael Jackson - Australian Albums Chart": needs en-dash instead of that hyphen

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for same for all the references, like Ref#56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #68, etc. (Not a full source review)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments are probably resolved. I'll check back later if I can support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk), Avilich (talk) and Tintero21 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced, comprehensive and clearly presents the information it is supposed to. This list has been the subject of five past failed featured list nominations but the last one was in 2008, 13 years ago. The main criticisms in the past have been format issues, lack of clarity and very few references. All of these issues have in my mind been sorted in the present version. The present version has clear references for every entry as well as a clear and referenced set of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTCRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• The lead has no references at all

Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as †. I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.

I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the † symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (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.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)

This has the side-effect of making all the text in the cell bold and making the background darker. Is there a way to add row scopes while avoiding this effect? I can't get it to work properly with the rows that already are darker in color either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you change the table's "class" from {| class="wikitable" to {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" it should prevent the style change. --PresN 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.

Added alt text to all images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Are there more accessibility concerns or is the article as it is now fine from this standpoint? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking this up. User:Iazyges (User talk:Iazyges)
• No objection to inclusion of any sources, will pass once issues are dealt with.

Missing bibliography

• Mathisen 1998 (citation 28) is missing a bibliography
• Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46) (citation 91) Watson 1999 lacks a bibliography.
• Kaegi 2003, p. 194. (citation 157) lacks a bibliography

Misc

• Kent, J. P. C. (1959) is not used by any citation.
• Standardize usage of location.

Titles needing translation

• Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil give translate title
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) translate title
• Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) translate title.
• Estiot, Sylviane (1996) translate title
• Hartmann, Udo (2002) translate title
• Rea, J. R. (1972)
• Seibt, Werner (2018)
• Stein, Arthur (1924

Notes

• Hammond 1957 (citation 48) breaks when 1957 is included (it is manually cited to just Hammond with a ref= parameter), so I've removed the date from the cite.

  Same with Schreiner, pp. 157–159. (citation 209)

• Cameron 1988 was given date of 1998 in bibliography incorrectly (citation was correct 1988 date); I've corrected it.
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) and Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) ISBNs were swapped, now fixed.
• Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016) the google book link gives publisher as Springer, WorldCat only gives multiple Palgrave Macmillan, not sure why this is the case.

Palgrave Macmillan is a subsidiary of Springer so that's probably why. In any event, previewing the book itself on Google Books and scrolling down shows that the book itself uses "Palgrave Macmillan" so I think that's what's best to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges I've added the missing bibliography, it looks to me that you yourself and Tintero21 handled the other issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

• "absence of constitutional criterias" - criteria is already a plural word so shouldn't have an S added
• "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and ruled undisputed" => "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed"
• What's with the bar (for want of a better term) under Geta's entry (and in other places)?
• "Brother of (more likely) half-brother of Tacitus" - think this should be "Brother or, more likely, half-brother of Tacitus"
• "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III' death" => "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III's death"
• "revolted against Michael VII on 2 July/October 1077" - what does this mean (the date)?
• "it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard as emperors only those who actually ruled" - can lose one of those "only"s
• I think that's all I got - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The "bars" are meant to distinguish non-dynastic emperors. Maybe we should explain it somewhere, probably on "List structure" or in note. The alternative would be to make many more tables, even if they only have one emperor (like in the List of English monarchs). IMO it looks clean the way it is. About the 2 July/October question (I edited that section), it's mean to be “2 July or 2 October”. Tintero21 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Should be all of these addressed. I've followed Tintero21's suggestion and added to the "List structure" section for what the bars represent - I don't think there is a cleaner way to represent dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire dating from the granting of the title Augustus to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC,[1][2] after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar. "dating from" lends itself better to a "start-end" structure which this sentence lacks, finishing in past, rather than the actual end, perhaps change dating from to simply after?

Changed to "after". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• regions of the empire were ruled by provincial governors answerable to and authorized by the Senate and People of Rome suggest the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election may be worth mentioning briefly that often the emperors themselves were the consuls, perhaps Oftentimes, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on the author, the Dominate period of the empire is considered to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine. author could mean primary or secondary source as written, perhaps Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.

Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• with the division usually based in geographic terms suggest with the division usually based on geographic regions

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the centuries that followed, historians typically refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire", suggest Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire". for clarity regarding timeline and primary/secondary sources.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO the lede should mention Justinian re-conquered a good portion of the empire, perhaps a sentence or two before The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.; maybe Under Justinian, in the sixth century, a large portion of the Western Empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Most of this territory was soon lost, including Spain in 624, Africa in 698, and a large portion of Italy under his successor, Justin II, although Italy was not fully lost until 1071. The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests

Added in with some minor alterations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should also give a sentence or two to the fact that many pretenders continued the claim to be Roman emperors, and mention that nations such as the Ottomans also made this claim.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy

• A vast majority of emperors also died by non-natural means suggest Very few emperors died of natural causes,

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,

Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• wrestle power away suggest seize

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion

• I've removed the usurper tag from Basiliscus as I don't think he is really considered as such by the main body of sources; he was the legitimate emperor as recognized by the political, religious, and military establishments of the time, including the senate. He just pissed all of them off at such a prodigious pace he only lasted 19 months. While the PLRE does refer to Basiliscus as a usurper in places (sometimes for differentiation I think, given that there was a Basiliscus as an opposing caesar during his reign), in his own section he is recognized as Augustus.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I think a lot of authors are a bit inconsistent in who they deem to be a usurper or legitimate. Does not make a lot of sense that Saloninus appears to be counted more often than Procopius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges

Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no other issues with the article, great effort put in, other than some prose issues (and source issues, under a different cap), I think the article is ready for featured status. User:Iazyges

Thank you for taking the time to go through this. All of the comments above should be addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The fourth paragraph of the lead has more depth than necessary about the empire's borders, which seems undue since that's not what the article's about, and there was plenty of expansion and change in earlier centuries too.

I would argue that border changes are necessary information (and IIRC Iazyges also argued for this) - the changes described in the fourth paragraph are quite dramatic and what territory these rulers controlled can be construed to be relevant information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not anything similar to Territorial evolution of the United States for the Roman Empire? Agree that it's relevant, but when you're talking about many changes over an enormous area over hundreds of years, I'm not sure this is the best format.

Yes, I understand. There is Borders of the Roman Empire but it does not really fulfill that purpose (and doing so at the same level of detail as Territorial evolution of the United States would probably be impossible). I've tried shortening the border changes part considerably and put some of the detail in a note, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The section "list structure" is not really about list structure, but rather inclusion criteria

I've renamed it and made it a subsection of the "legitimacy" section since it more or less follows on from that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are over 100 uses of "c." with a tooltip for circa; this seems excessive to have so many tooltips, especially in consecutive instances

Would it be more appropriate to remove all instances of the tooltip except for the first one, or to keep the first tooltip in each table but remove the rest? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the first in each table would be fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There inconsistency in unknown lifespan formatting, including (aged over 62?), (aged approx. 55), (aged approx. 76?), (aged c. 27)

Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92^Talk 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar". This is vague and does not help the reader. I would delete.

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the position gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian". A person can be authoritian, not a position.

replaced "the position" with "emperors". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the late third century, after the Crisis of the Third Century" Repetition of third century. I think you could delete "In the late third century".

Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " Diocletian formalized and embellished the recent manner of imperial rule. The period thereafter was characterized by the explicit increase of authority in the person of the emperor, and the use of the style dominus noster (our lord)." This is vague and wordy. How about "Diocletion increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title dominus noster (our lord)".

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and there were no true objective legal criteria for imperial acclamation beyond proclamation or acceptance by the Roman army, the event that most often came to signify imperial accession". "legal criteria for imperial acclamation" sounds wrong. It also does not seem from what you say below to signify imperial accession. Proclamation of a general by his troops was often the first stage, but as you say below he had to defeat his rivals to be regarded as legitimate.

I see what you mean; changed to just "there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army". The point is that there was no legal obligations emperors had to fulfill before being proclaimed that stopped any successful general or politician from being proclaimed emperor by their supporters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that Tiberius was co-emperor with Heraclonas in 641, but Tiberius is not listed. Then Constantine IV ruled with Heraclius and another Tiberius (659–681), but neither is listed. If they do not qualify for the list, then surely they do not qualify to be shown as co-emperors?

There is a note hidden away in the entry for Magnus Maximus that somewhat explains this; co-emperors in the Byzantine period constitutionally held the same title as senior emperors (i.e. both were basileus) and they thus qualify as emperors, both in a general sense and per the inclusion criteria. They are however rarely listed as such in lists of emperors in WP:RS (in contrast to ancient Roman junior co-emperors such as Diadumenian) and are not counted in enumerations of the senior emperors (Tiberius III would be Tiberius V if counted "correctly"). Here we solved the conundrum by not giving co-emperors full entries of their own but still mentioning them - this appears to be how some other lists handle things (the List of English monarchs for instance includes Henry the Young King but not with a full entry). They can't have full entries in the list because that will produce an unrecognizable list and confuse readers in regard to the numberings but they should not be wholly excluded either because then the list is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps this could be solved with adding some more clear explanation somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a footnote for co-emperors who do not have an entry, as with your note explaining the approximate dates in the year of the six emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; an individual footnote for every co-emperor without an entry (could this help to solve the point below as well) or an overarching footnote for all of them explaining their status as junior rulers (perhaps a slightly altered version of the footnote already in Magnus Maximus's entry)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not thinking of separate footnotes for each one, but a single footnote, as with {{Efn||name=sixemperors}}, for co-emperors who do not have their own entry in the table, explaining the reason for their exclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful if you distinguished between different emperors with the same name such as Tiberius, for example "Tiberius, son of Heraclian" and "Tiberius, son of Constans II"

I've added "son of" distinguishers to cases were confusion is likely (several co-emperors with the same name in quick succession, co-emperors with the same name as senior emperors etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dethroned and blinded Constantine in 797". Perhaps worth adding that Irene dethroned and blinded her son.

Added "dethroned and blinded her son Constantine in 797". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that Isaac I Komnenos abdicated and died six months later, but below you say that he designated his successor on his deathbed.

Changed "on his deathbed" to "during his abdication". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Retired as a nun in November 1071" This implies that she retired from being a nun. Presumably you mean to become a nun.

Yes, changed to "became a nun". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Deposed in a palace coup while imprisoned by the Seljuk Sultanate, captured and blinded on 29 June 1072" You should say that this was after his release by the Seljuks.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Great-grandson of Alexios I, proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople after refusing an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, then captured, deposed and had Andronikos I killed" This is unclear. Who was the order of arrest for. Presumable you mean that he captured etc Andronikos, but this is ungrammatical.

Rewrote the entry. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Refused an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, whereafter he was proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople. Captured, deposed and killed Andronikos I. This is still unclear. Did Andronikos order his arrest or order him to arrest someone else? If it was to arrest him then "resisted" would be clearer than "refused" Also, "whereafter" is correct but described by OED as "Now formal or archaic". Maybe "after which". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to your suggestions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek." This is bureaucratic gobbledygook. Maybe "Heraclius issued his later administrative documents in Greek." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed In 629, Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek to From 629 onwards, Heraclius issued administrative documents in Greek., which keeps the year of the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this review still waiting on something? I'm happy to take a look if the coords feel like more comments are needed, but frankly, the reviews seem to all be there. Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I first edited this article on March 2012, the list had a plenty of problems: a lot of work has been done during these 9 years and I sincerely believe the list has been improved so much. Some months ago, I submitted to you a first candidacy and you rightly rejected it. Now, I've corrected those errors and, in my humble opinion, the list now meets all the criteria to be considered a FL. Thank you for your attention, Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments on the lead No article should start with "This article contains...."  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title with" => "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title to"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] That sentence is unsourced  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] "Since 1946, 29 men assumed the office in 75 years" => "Since 1946, 29 men have assumed the office in 75 years"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] The lead overall seems a bit thin. There must be more to mention eg the longest-serving PM, the shortest-serving, other notable facts.....  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (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.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 1 becomes !scope=row | 1.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments on the tables and refs Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Small text should not be used  Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal?  Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comments Ok thank you, I've tried to solve some of these problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]  Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [6], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: Hi! So, what do you think, doest the list fit with the FL criteria? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hi Chris! Any news? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: About the candidacy. I mean, I remember that in the previous one, many users answered, what can I do to re-start the discussion? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact other users who commented before and ask them to take a look at this one. Are there any appropriate Wikiprojects where you could invite people to come and take a look? WP:ITALY? WP:POLITICS? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, Reywas92, and Aza24: Excuse me for pinging you here, but some months ago you commented the first candidacy of this page. During these months, I followed your suggestions and I sincerly believe that it's ready to become a FL now. I'd be glad to hear your opinions. Thank you so much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Images need alt text
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Key needed for abbreviations in "Composition" column (i.e., what are "UL", "PR", "UECI", and so on?)
• Small text should be avoided as much as possible – at the very least, it does not need to be used in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Much of the information for the "Party" and "Composition" columns seems to be unsourced. For example, source 15 clearly states the start and end dates, and it makes it clear that it was the fourth Cavour government, but I don't see any information about the parties leading the government. Most of the sources from storia.camera.it use the same format, so it's an issue throughout the list. Where is this information sourced from?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RunningTiger123, thanks for your comment. I've a few doubts about the key for the "Composition" column. There're dozens of parties involved in Italian governments, throughout 160 years of history, how can we create a key for all of them? Sorry, but I fear it's almost impossibile and in my humble opinion the table would look awful. Regarding the small text, we already reduced it a lot, and to be honest, it's used in some others FL in the "time in office" rows, like List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I'll try to found some better sources for the parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the key: WP:PLA states that we should "avoid Easter egg links, which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on." If the user has to click the link to see what party is being discussed, we're not following that. Some of the abbreviations could be grouped with the existing key; for instance, you could write   Christian Democracy (DC) instead of just   Christian Democracy.

Regarding the small text: Many of the lists with small text were promoted to FL status a while ago and do not reflect current standards. (For instance, the list of UK prime ministers was promoted over 15 years ago.) MOS:FONTSIZE makes it clear that "reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", and in this case, I don't see a good reason for using it; the smaller text in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns doesn't make the table appreciably narrower, so I don't know why it needs to remain. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "During this period" What period? This hasn't been introduced yet
• "both branches of Parliament"->"both houses of Parliament"
• Is "Government of National Unity" the appropriate term to use in this context? The capital letters imply a proper noun. Ricasoli II Cabinet says it was called Government of National Reconciliation. Boselli and Orlando had large coalitions but they don't appear to be "national unity".

Beyond the comments above, otherwise pretty nice! Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add I don't think the legislature and monarch/president columns should have the !, which is for row headers. Otherwise support, thanks for your improvements from before! Any comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "as expressed in the Albertine Statute", This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "as laid down in the Albertine Statute"?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The current officeholder is Mario Draghi". This will become out of date. It should be "As of February 2022, the current officeholder is Mario Draghi".
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you need a section above the table explaining the headings. 'Party' is presumably that of the prime minister as opposed to 'composition' being that of the cabinet, but this should be explained. 'Government' is misleading as most articles only cover a list of the cabinet. Legislatures links to articles about general elections. 'Cabinet' and 'General election' would be more accurate headings.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Starting with Cavour at IV and legislature at VIII seems odd and not explained in the articles linked to. Maybe it refers to Sardinia but there is no continuity with the rest of Italy.
  •  Done, The first government of the Kingdom of Italy is officially known as Cavour IV, while the first legislature is the VIII. I know it sounds weird, but I've tried to explain it with footnotes. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The article looks fine apart from the headings. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick.mon: Did you see the last set of comments? Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick.mon nudge. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already updated the page, I'm just trying to figure out how to solve the "Party / Coalition" section. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've fixed it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a natural dislike of single sentence paragraphs. I think you could/should" merge the first two paras of the lead.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "officeholder was Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, who took the office " officeholder ... took the office is repetitive.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "unification of Italy" is there an article for this we could link?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the King of Italy, as" vs "The prime minister of Italy" why the inconsistent capitalisation of job titles?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "abolishment" reads odd, even if it might be right, why isn't it simply abolition?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Italian Republic" could link.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "is currently" see WP:ASOF.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Might be worth noting that not one single woman has ever held the office.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "who stayed in power for more than nine years non-consecutively" stayed ... non-consecutively is odd for me. Perhaps "who held the position ..." or something.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume † means died in office but that's not in the key. Check you're using alt text for the {{dagger}} symbol too.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• E.g. in Giolitti's entry, it says "with PSI's external support", but where is that in the reference? Similar comment applies to all such notes.
• The abbreviations, such as PSI, PDSI, all need to be added in a key, not just rely on the wikilinks.
  • The problem here is that we have dozens of parties involved in Italian goverments. I'll try to do something to add them to the key, but I sincerly think it would be quite confusing. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 6 and 8 have spaced hyphens, should be unspaced per MOS.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Third biblio entry needs an en-dash in the year range.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick.mon: Are you still working on this nomination? --PresN 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest instalment in the history of Billboard's R&B charts, which (as with the previous year) were thoroughly dominated by the sound of Louis Jordan. Feedback as ever gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another great piece about the R&B charts instalment, I only have very minor comments:

• R&B and rock and roll. -- would pipe R&B as I think this is the first mention in the lead as a genre.
  • it's actually the second, but the first wasn't linked either, so I have linked it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• had ended by the end of the following year -- "ended" and "end" in close proximity, perhaps had ended the following year could be an alternative.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You thought you were safe just because you remembered the caption this time? Guess again, because something new has been added to these reviews!

• If the row header cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• 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 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "to the Four Tunes" → Shouldn't "The" be capitalized?
  • Per MOS:THEBAND, no -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "for the singer nicknamed "Cleanhead" → "for Vinson, nicknamed "Cleanhead"
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all, really nice list. AryKun (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:23, 20 April 2022 (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.