Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2023

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky has had 5 different coaches win national championships, the most of any college basketball program. I have improved this list to (hopefully) match the excellence of the coaches that have led Big Blue Nation. This article is modeled on List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, with a few improvements such as link fixes and the removal of defunct and/or minor coaching awards in an attempt to limit the page size. I look forward to any improvements you may have! Note: I have another FLC however said list has support already, all existing comments have been addressed and no new comments have been made in two months. Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably should mention somewhere that the team relates to the University of Kentucky
• "In 1921 they would join" - why not just "In 1921 they joined"
• "11 years later" - always better not to start a sentence with a number written in digits if possible
• " from the program's inaugural 1903–1904 season to the current year, 2022–23" - any reason why the formats of the two seasons are different?
• "a retroactive national championships" - a (singular) championships (plural) doesn't sound right to me, unless it's an Americanism of which I am not aware......?
• "Eklund is the teams all-time leader" => "Eklund is the team's all-time leader"
• "he has had held" - grammar's a bit mangled here
• Names of coaches in the table should sort based on surname, not forename
• Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop (currently some have one but some don't)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved all comments--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• These apply to both the 'key' tables and the main one:
• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | align="center" | {{nts|1}} becomes !scope=row align="center" | {{nts|1}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Something is messed up with the images on the side- for me there's the key tables with white space next to them, then the line of images with a huge white space on the left of them, then the table. At no resolution can I get the images to be next to either table.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I have fixed all of the issues present Newtothisedit (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-expert prose review:

• "The program has played over 3,100 games across 113 seasons from the program's inaugural 1903–04 season to the most recent year, 2022–23." Suggest that the current information, like the number of games and link to the most recent year, be removed per MOS:CURRENT as it will have to be continuously updated.

Image review:

• No concerns about copyright.
• Typically, galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia articles, but in this case I am OK with it because the article only has 5/22 coaches with pictures. However, if more images are found I suggest that the images are placed in the chart in their own column.
  • I intentionally rounded to the nearest 100 games, so that it will only need to be updated once a year when a new season begins.--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, version reviewed

• Suggest archiving the sources using IABot
  • Archived all of the sources--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes coachesdatabase.com a high-quality source? I cannot find editorial information about their authors, and the copyright leads to a marketing company website.
  • Replaced with better sources.--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I believe that I have addressed everything. Newtothisedit (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review #2: version reviewed

• Ref 12: Today should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
• No concerns with references. Since the above is a minor quibble that can be quickly fixed, I can support. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my project of reviewing FLCs to get this queue moving:

• You've linked Rupp twice in the lead. I see why you did it, for consistency with the other championship coaches in the second instance, but I'm not sure it's necessary.
  • Fixed
• I might use the {{as of}} template for the current head coach. Per MOS:REALTIME, it's better to be precise so statements don't become dated.
  • Added
• Otherwise I don't really have any prose gripes, I think they've been ironed out by other comments.
• Key is clear, and thank you especially for the table with the abbreviations for the awards, as they are helpful for those with no knowledge of NCAA Basketball (ie, me)
• I agree that the gallery is suitable since it's only a few specific high-achieving coaches.
• You may want to link publishers in the sources - it's not mandatory and I won't fuss about it, but it would be helpful as many are bluelinks.
  • Added

Generally looking quite good and really not much to gripe about! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos I believe I have fixed everything. Newtothisedit (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm a support! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 30 April 2023 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, here's my 21st nomination in this series. In this particular year in the R&B charts it was all about the dance craze, as everyone was twisting the night away doing the mashed potato. Feedback as ever most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor, but suggest using {{nowrap|chart-topper}} to avoid line breaks for hyphenated words. (for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices)
• Should The 4 Seasons be sorted first since you listed it as a numeric and not as The Four Seasons?
• That's all I have. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• {{color|gray|1964}} (in the navbox) answers a question I had about navboxes ... thanks for that.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I found nothing to copyedit. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. No problems.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list 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. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, spot checks not done. Version reviewed:

• Suggest archiving all links using IABot.
• No other concerns.

Image review:

• No licencing concerns.
• Alt text used, no px concerns.

Support due to no sourcing or image concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Oceanian bird list, did this a while ago but nominating now. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• The thing that's the hardest to get for my plant FLCs is the image review, so:
• Image review: the correct licenses are present, and I can't find any reason to distrust them (which is kind of what image reviewing comes down to). Correct coding (including alt text) is present, and image quality is good. They do a good job of illustrating the list. Pass.
• Please consider reviewing the very short List of Saxifragales families when it hits FLC (coming soon). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well ... I better not ask for help with a specific list because I don't know how fast things are going to move (if at all). If you're interested in reviewing any of these, keep an eye out for "List of ... families". - Dank (push to talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing:
• First: I'm really impressed. I think a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to condense biological descriptions this much, while still including critical details and the right amount of interesting details as well. Well done. Better than anything I could do, I think.
• There's no requirement to put this stuff in a table; that's up to your discretion, and personally, I think what you've got works fine without a table. But be aware that people generally only review what they feel comfortable with, and I've found that FLC reviewers are generaly more comfortable with tables.
  • Most "List of birds by country" lists aren't in tables, since the checklist for birds for any country that isn't a small archipelago is hundreds of species and managing these in a table would be absolutely ridiculous. I guess the lists for the smaller countries could be changed to tables, but I'd like to maintain consistency across the lists.
    • Makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "a unique mound or burrow nests": I'm sympathetic ... you don't want to devote a disproportionate amount of text to any one bird, and that can make it really difficult to make yourself understood. Having said that ... I didn't understand this at all, until I went to the article and saw "a unique strategy of egg incubation in which it relies on environmental heat sources". I think you need to say a little more here.
  • Added some detail.
• "short thick but pointed bills": "short thick-but-pointed bills" would be better, but I think I prefer something like "short thick bills ending in a sharp point".
  • Reworded.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list 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. My image review is above.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A little depressing that this one hasn't picked up any more support. We don't have enough biology-aware reviewers at FLC ... but I suspect that some of the reviewers have just overlooked this. You might try reviewing a couple of FLCs; if that doesn't work or if you're not comfortable doing that, then (at the risk of sounding self-serving) come review List of early-diverging flowering plant families, and I'll see if I can drum up a review for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 10:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Forgot to @AryKun. - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add |url-access=subscription to the references (Ref 9, 13, 23-31).
• Use a consistent date format. Ref 32 has |date=4 March 2020 (dmy format) and |access-date=2022-05-04 (ymd format). Personally, I prefer dmy or mdy format but I'll leave that up to you.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • EN-Jungwon, I've addressed both of your points. I've changed the last ref to ymd format since that's already what most of the refs use. AryKun (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If you have time would you mind reviewing the FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017). -- EN-Jungwon 08:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: version reviewed

• "Clements, James F.;" and "Lepage, Denis" are listed in Works cited but are not used as inline citations in the article. I suggest using them.
  • Both of these are general references; one is the taxonomy used by the list and the other is the actual list itself. The only way to cite either would be to add redundant citations after every species mentioned, which only adds unnecessary clutter.
    • I don't think a citation is necessary after every entry. I suggested placing this citation here so that readers can click on the footnote and get directed to the book's citation, as the wikilink doesn't necessarily have the citation information. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest adding Clements's book at the end of the third paragraph.
  • The book itself doesn't cite the third paragraph; the third para merely clarifies which taxonomy we're using in the list. It would be akin to citing a British dictionary after a sentence that says that British English is used in an article.
    • This is similar to my note above. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No concerns with the quality of sources used.

The concerns I express above do not prevent me from passing the source review, but I hope editors still consider finding a way to add these sources as inline citations (to stop the harverror). Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've suppressed the harverrors; I don't think adding superfluous footnotes where they aren't appropriate or citing anything just to reduce the tags created by a couple specific user-scripts is good practice. AryKun (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

• No concerns with permissions.
• Alt text used, no px concerns.
• Captions are fine

Those are my comments. Please ping when these are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Z1720, I've replied to your comments. AryKun (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dank, EN-Jungwon, and Z1720, I've added a map showing where Wallis and Futuna is because I feel it would be helpful for readers; pinging incase you have any comments about the change. AryKun (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the caption for the map read someone like, "Wallis and Futuna, circled in red, is located north of New Zealand" or something similar. No concerns about the image's permissions. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis and Futuna isn't particularly close to New Zealand; it's about as close to Hawaii, Australia, or New Guinea. Readers can see the map and deduce where the islands are by themselves, imo. AryKun (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia can assume that readers can deduce what part of the world they are looking at. Another solution might be, "Wallis and Futuna's location in the South Pacific, circled in red" or something similar. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added South Pacific to the caption (although I question whether we should even try to be catering to readers that are unable to identify the Pacific Ocean and Australia). AryKun (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I support and this passes my source and image checks. Z1720 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PresN, this has been open for an awfully long time; are three supports enough? AryKun (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 30 April 2023 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. I've got a new template in the "See also" section (but I'm trying to get it compact enough for use as a sidebar). All the lists in that template other than this one and the ones on the "rosids" line are now Featured Lists, so you can look at those if you want to see the previous FLC nominations. We're getting very close now to covering all the flowering plant families! I'm psyched. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PresN and I worked up a sidebar with links to the other lists. I think it will help give a sense of how the orders fit together, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-expert review on a topic not in my usual area. Feel free to argue with anything.

• Perhaps it is worth linking woody to woody plant, to benefit unfamiliar readers.
• This is optional, but since the Glossary is likely considered the body of the article and is partly written in prose, perhaps superasterids and the three plant orders would be worth linking again.
• That's all from me. Nothing to quibble about, overall an excellent, well-structured and very informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks kindly. Both done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- if you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - After reading the list twice, I found nothing to quibble about. It is well-written and the images included demonstrate it well. I have an FAC currently which I would appreciate any comments on if you're interested. Regards.--NØ 14:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, that support helps a lot, and I'll be happy to review the Meghan Trainor song. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Wait, for some reason I saw "FAC" and was thinking "FLC". I haven't reviewed at FAC for a long time; I've been sick off and on for a while and I haven't kept up with standards there. But I'll go through now and do some copyediting that I think will help the article pass at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Version reviewed, spot-checks not done.

• "Kubitzki, K.; " Is the publisher the Springer Publishing Company? If so, I recommend using their full name.
  • No, this is the German publisher. I see the name that we're using for them on Wikipedia these days is "Springer Science+Business Media", so I went with that. Added in this edit. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2016)" does not have a retrieval date, while "Bremer, Kåre; Friis," does. Since these are both academic journal articles, either both should have this or neither.
  • Removed in this edit.
• "Coombes, Allen (2012)." Google Books says that the author is Allen J. Coombes; should the initial be included?
  • Done.

Image review:

• "Achatocarpus.PNG": needs a USPD banner
  • Replaced the image in this edit.
• No other concerns with licencing, px, or alt text.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support my comments were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 30 April 2023 (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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent FLC was the list of US number one R&B singles of 1963, so naturally here I am next with the equivalent list for 1965. Huh? Don't worry about it, nobody who didn't work for Billboard c.60 years ago understands it either, but there you go. Anyway, feast your eyes on the host of all-time classic songs that topped the chart in this particular year and please feel free to offer your feedback on the list..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor (somewhat nitpick-y) suggestion, use {{nowrap|million-selling}}, along with other hyphenated words to avoid line breaks, for those who use different display resolutions or mobile devices.
• released on the Detroit-based label -- should it be released under the Detroit-based label?

Nothing to quibble. Another great read and work as usual. --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done. I am British and in this country we say that a record was released "on" a label. But maybe "under" is the norm in the states.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, there's something new to learn everyday :) It could be a case of me reading music articles written in American English and its prevalent usage. If this is written in British English then that is acceptable. Either way, nothing from stopping me to support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For File:The Temptations 1968.JPG, would there be a way to change the source link to go to the page with the image? Right now, when I click on the link, it goes to page 12 and not page 7.
• The source links for File:Marvin Gaye 1966 (cropped).jpg do not work for me, and besides, I think it is always better to use something other than eBay for this sort of thing. I have the same comment for File:The Supremes 1966.JPG.
• Should black be capitalized in these two instances: (mainstream success to black music) and (one of the most influential black musicians of all time)? I am genuinely unsure so that is why I asked.
• For Citation 1, I would italicize Billboard as it is referencing the magazine, and items like that should be represented accurately even in citation titles.
• I need a subscription to see Citation 3 so I would mark that on the source. I have the same comment for the Billboard chart sources as I can only see the top spot (which is fine in this context), but to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well.
• Richie Unterberger should be linked in Citation 8. Same for David Browne in Citation 3
• For Citation 10, I think the title should just be (Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs 1965) as that is what appears on the top of the archived version of the article. I took out the stray semi-colon after R&B as it seems like a typo, but I would not be opposed to keeping it for complete accuracy. The current citation title does not really match with the article.
• While this is not required for a FLC, I would strongly encourage you to archive citations to avoid any potential headache with potential link rot and death in the future.

I hope this review is helpful! Since I have brought up points regarding the sources, I will do a full source review (i.e. spot-checks, etc.) once the above comments have been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review. All done bar "to see the full list, it is saying it is only available to Pro subscribers so that should be made clear as well - not sure how to indicate that.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that instance, I would recommend marking the citation as requiring a subscription, as done for Citation 3. It seems like there is a limit on how many free articles Billboard allows users to see. I was able to look through a few of these lists without issue and then the subscription pop-up appeared. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do other citations on en.wikipedia to Billboard mark it as "subscription required"? I don't remember seeing these but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC) I did some searching because it seems like an interesting question. I haven't seen a single case of "subscription required" (for charts like these) ... and that includes two FAs, for BTS and Meghan Trainor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, the site does require a subscription, and I cannot access the entire list without a subscription. When I click on the source, all I have access to is the number one spot, and while that is appropriate for this list, the source is still not fully accessible to individuals without a subscription. I know that there are some instance where subscription websites like Billboard seemingly require subscriptions for only certain parts. For instance, I can click on the Billboard articles in the Meghan Trainor article without needing a subscription to view the full thing. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit scared about how fast some rules are changing on Wikipedia, and what that may do to the cohesion of the community. Some of the changes, I'm sure, are just because things are changing in the world very fast, maybe too fast to keep up. We'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an instance of the rules changing on Wikipedia. As I have said above, for one of the examples you mentioned, the Billboard citations are not hidden behind a paywall or a subscription like in this case. This is less a change in Wikipedia rules and policies as the subscription template is not new, but more so a reflection of how more websites are adopting a subscription model for their content. Billboard has a rather clear FAQ page saying that this "Billboard Pro" subscription is for weekly charts so it makes sense that these charts would fall underneath that. While I do understand your concerns, I do not see how this is an example of this. In my opinion, this is straight-forward. A citation requires a subscription to access a full page so it should be marked as such. Again, this subscription template is not new. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Apologies if I was being annoying or too forceful with this. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. This also passes my source review. I did a spot check and everything passes. The sources now all have appropriate structures. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47, Dank, and ChrisTheDude: Following up on this - Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required gives a more precise answer on the question of source restrictions: if you can access a site for a few pages but then need to register to see the rest, then you can use "|access=limited". Not sure when that got added as an option, but it fits this case. Wiki-wide use of the access parameter is a bit spotty, and I don't think not using it or using "subscription" instead of "limited" is an opposable offense by any means, but in terms of being perfectly accurate, there you are. If there's a bot that does these (I know there's at least one that runs around adding "|access=free" to free journals) then it would be best for a wiki-wide run of setting billboard to limited rather than getting ChrisTheDude to go back and edit a hundred+ lists. --PresN 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aoba and I discussed this on their talk page, and we agreed that asking for edits to previous lists would be too much. "access=limited" sounds great to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Apologies for my late response. I am currently taking a wikibreak. I raised this point during my review because the citations should accurately represent the sources. If a subscription is needed, then it should be marked as such. I agree that the "limited" version should have been the one I suggested, but I had honestly forgotten about it. In my review, I did not bring up how this would affect other Wikipedia articles or lists, and I did not request that anyone go back into their FAs or FLs. That is a completely different conversation. I noticed that I could not access the full source, and I do not see any issue with bringing it up as part of a source review as that is the point of doing one. I did not oppose at anytime in my source review. I simply waited until the sources were accurately represented in the citations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for any mistakes on my part. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need to apologize as I would not consider it a mistake. It is good to have these types of discussions, but I just do not see why pointing this out when a list is up for review would be an issue. That being said, this is not really the appropriate venue for that and I do not want to take away from the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said it was an issue; I tried to make that clear, but maybe I didn't. I said that if we're living in a world where Billboard and other companies are changing the rules frequently, in a way that requires literally millions of references to be changed (on Wikipedia and elsewhere), and if we're expecting writers to do all this manually and on demand, then we might be creating a John Henry (folklore) problem. (John Henry won the contest against the machines, but killed himself from overwork in the process.) If we're living in that world ... and increasingly, we are ... then we need to give more thought to using bots to fix these problems. That was what I was talking about. Sorry if I was confusing; I have no problem with anything you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) (I'm not talking about the burden on individual editors here, I'm talking about the total burden faced by the editing community as a whole.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I got your point, but it is not relevant to my source review or this FLC. I raised a point about the citations could more accurately represented the sources to an editor who nominated a list at the FLC process where it is expected for reviewers to provide these types of suggestions. Again, I never even remotely said or suggested editors changed this across Wikipedia or in their past work. I do not know why that even became a topic of discussion, particularly after I had already completed my source review.

    All I did was point out areas of improvements in the citations, which seems standard for a source reviewer. Apparently, I did not do it correctly. This honestly just feels like attacking or belittling my source review, and to be blunt, it does put me off from doing any more in the future. I am going back to my WikiBreak so I said above, I think it is best to just end the discussion here as the focus should be on the FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I added a comma; other than that, all good. 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 list 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. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The song was one of a number of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" - "The song was among numerous of the year's chart-toppers to be released under the Motown label" or something simpler might work as well.
• "Marvin Gaye, the Supremes and the Four Tops also reached the peak position in 1965" - to make it clear this is about #1 peak positions only, this could maybe be "reached the summit" or "reached the top of the chart"

Just two nitpicks from me. Great list and the image picks complement it well. If you have some time, I'd greatly appreciate your input on my new FAC. Hope everything's going well!--NØ 16:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - second one done, first one not done because "numerous of" is not a grammatically valid expression -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try "many of" or "several/numerous chart-toppers of the year".--NØ 21:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- NØ 13:36, 10 April 2023 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (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) 12:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last spring, I read thousands of archived newspaper stories, searching for every major story about President Warren G. Harding. I was an inexperienced user at the time, so I was wary of the FLC process. I've now ensured that all items are cited and that the timeline has a suitable lead. I believe that the timeline accurately lists all major events involving the presidency of Warren G. Harding, and I'm nominating this as my first FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool list, great work! At least the short presidency made this more manageable! Some comments:

• The first sentence is a little awkward by making "presidency" the subject, I'd suggest something like "Warren G. Harding was inaugurated as the 29th president of the United States on March 4, 1921, and he died on August 2, 1923, 881 days later. During Harding's presidency, he organized..."
• Even though presidents didn't travel much yet, it's not that particular that a president would meet with international figures - that listing doesn't need to be in the first paragraph
• "He declined to participate actively in the 1922 United States elections, opting to write letters of endorsement" Don't know that history of midterms, but was that unusual not to campaign in them?
• June 30 1921 - is an appropriations act that major? Before congress became dysfunctional, they signed like 12 of those every year, link unlikely to have an article
• September 20 - redlink is not needed
• Nov 14 - I don't think the Victory Memorial mentioned in the cite is actually related to National World War I Memorial (Washington, D.C.); that article and [7] say there were buildings there until demolished in 1930
• June 21 1922 – lowercase is inconsistent with May 15
• Feb 27 and 28, 1923 both include Hubert Work and Harry New
• June 20 - italics for newspaper
• Aug 2 - should say where he died

Reywas92^Talk 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All comments have now been addressed. And yes, starting with Harding over the other presidencies of that era was completely intentional. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, pinging since this hasn't seen much activity. Any further thoughts about this as a featured list? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. Reywas92^Talk 04:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do a full review later, but for now will leave you with this drive-by: image captions which are not complete sentences, eg "Harding with Marie Curie. May 20, 1921." should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Warren G. Harding was inaugurated as the 29th president of the United States on March 4, 1921, and he served as president until his death" - minor, but the word "he" is probably redundant
• Could you add a few words to give context to some of the other people mentioned, eg "Harding attends the funeral of Edward Douglass White" => "Harding attends the funeral of Supreme Court judge Edward Douglass White" (or whatever is appropriate)
• "Harding loosens a Wilson-era rule" - who's Wilson?
• "France's insistence of maintain" - not grammatically correct. Suggest "France's insistence on maintaining"
• "The Wall Street Journal breaks the story that Secretary of the Interior had leased" => "The Wall Street Journal breaks the story that the Secretary of the Interior had leased"
• "for the 100th centennial" - the 100th centennial would mark 10,000 years and I am fairly sure Grant didn't live that long :-) Either "the centennial" or "the 100th birthday"
• That's what I got as far as the end of May 1922, but I need to drop off now. I'll do the rest later this evening...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Harding expresses his support for cabinet secretaries to express" - any way to change one of the two verbs to avoid repetition?
• "The Senate votes to give Harding authority over flexible tariffs rates" => "The Senate votes to give Harding authority over flexible tariff rates"
• "Harding meets with veteran's organization leaders" => "Harding meets with veterans' organization leaders" (more than one veteran in each organisation)
• "Harding meets with Former Prime Minister of France" => "Harding meets with former Prime Minister of France" (there isn't an official position of "Former Prime Minister of France")
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I've addressed all of your comments, including context for all names where it's not evident who they are from context. (And for what it's worth, I've never seen a source that says Grant isn't an ethereal being from the dawn of civilization.) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "This timeline includes notable events that took place during Harding's presidency, including the president's travels, speaking engagements, and notable meetings, as well as major government actions and other historical events that directly affected the presidency.": I don't know what's the best way to say this while complying with WP:FL?, WP:SELFREF and WP:V. I'm assuming you don't have reliable sources to back up the statement that these actions by Harding are the "notable" ones, that is, the ones that historians consider notable. See my last bullet point.
• In cases where I added a period to a caption per MOS:CAPFRAG, if you'd prefer to avoid the period, then change the main verb to a participle (dedicates -> dedicating, for instance).
• Some images need alt text (or, if nothing more needs to be said than what's in the caption, "alt ="). Check these subsections (but there are probably more): August 1921, November 1921, June 1922, November 1922.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits for the lead, the captions, and 1921; nothing big jumps out at me. I'll rely on the two previous prose reviews for the rest.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria (in a sense ... but see my last bullet point).
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list 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. (Some take the position that retrieval dates would be needed for the newspaper citations, but some don't, and that would be a huge amount of work ... I don't recommend it, at least not in this case.)
• 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 (except as noted about the alt text).
• 6. It is stable.
• I'll support because this is excellent work, and because the problem I talk about in my second bullet point might be fixable, but I'll leave this to other reviewers to decide the issue. I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; I think that the lack of precise definition/sourcing for what events are notable vs. not is an unavoidable bit of editorial judgement, which would be present whether or not you said it explicitly, so, promoting. --PresN 13:27, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 08:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To celebrate the start of a new MLS season, I have rewritten and reworked the season-by-season summary for my favorite team, Seattle Sounders FC. The table is not formatted similar to recent FLs for Burnley and Fiorentina with some modifications to fit an American team. I believe that the prose lead is a comprehensive overview of the many competitions and tournaments that the Sounders have played in (and mostly won), including the dizzying spell of 6 finals in 7 years from 2016 to 2022. SounderBruce 08:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be tempted to merge the five paragraphs of the lead into fewer than that
  • Merged down to four by grouping attendance and overall record together.
• Image caption is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Fixed.
• "All four tournaments serve as a qualification tournament" - a bit unwieldy, maybe "All four tournaments serve as qualifiers"....?
  • Fixed.
• Pretty sure the use of flags against players' names in the table is a MOS:FLAG violation
  • Removed, though they seem to be the norm for other sports articles and lists of this nature.
• There's multiple Harvard-style refs to something identified as "Major League Soccer (2023)" but there's nothing to indicate what that is
  • Per WP:SFN, it seems the preference is to use the author (in this case MLS) before attempting to use a title; the citations all link back to the Facts and Record Book.
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for taking this one up for review. I have responded to your comments. SounderBruce 18:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• SounderBruce, any possibility of using the {{Abbr}} template to replace the "Key to league record" and "Key to cup record"? That way the abbreviations in the table are more easily and quickly read by just hovering over them, instead of having to scroll back up a bit to the keys. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonzo fan2007: Added them to the column headers, but I don't think they would work well for the results cells. It's awkward to have to hover over when there's a link creating a second (and larger) preview box, and besides that I think most are self-explanatory for the assumed audience, who should be somewhat familiar with the concept of a knockout cup. SounderBruce 17:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you add "of the same name" after "succeeding an existing second-division team"?
  • Added.
• "Seattle are one of the most successful clubs in MLS history," any reason you switched to "Seattle"? Earlier and later in the lead you use "Sounders" or "the club". "Seattle are" sounds super clunky. "The Sounders are" sounds a lot better.
  • Fixed. I wanted to go for some variety, but it does look clunky.
• Same thing as previous, but less pronounced. "has played for Seattle" in the last sentence of the third paragraph. I would just stick with "Sounders" or "the club" throughout the lead.
  • Fixed.
• The second sentence of the last paragraph (about the playoff record) could use an "{{As of}} statement to keep it up to date.
  • Added.
• Note a: is this an editorial note, or a restriction that MLS uses for official figures? If the latter, a source should be added to the note to support this.
  • This is an editorial note, as MLS has inconsistencies in their bookkeeping for the 2020 season. There's also playoff and CCL figures that are not included due to the lack of a reliable source like Soccer America.
• Note f: could you clarify "capacity" as "seating capacity" or some other qualifier.
  • Added.

Honestly, pretty hard to find anything to quibble about. Really nice work SounderBruce. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thanks for the review. I've made all of the suggested changes. SounderBruce 20:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just be tempted to remove the 'total' row at the bottom of the list, just because it doesn't work with the 'Other' column and to keep the list similar to that of other FLs such as the Liverpool or Arsenal equivalent. But its totally up to you.
• Nonetheless, happy to support as its a good list. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I'm in favor of keeping the totals row as those statistics are sometimes used in "all-time" lists published by MLS, so it's not totally out of place for an American list. SounderBruce 07:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After recently expanding the main article of Filipina singer Angeline Quinto, here's her work and awards list which I have lumped into one article, tailored to FLs like List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac and List of roles and awards of Catherine Zeta-Jones. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "She played her first leading role on feature film" => "She played her first leading role in a feature film"

Done

• "who pretends as her patron's fiancée." => "who pretends to be her patron's fiancée."

Done

• "Quinto then released here fourth studio album" => "Quinto then released her fourth studio album"

Done

• Some of the entries in the awards table where the recipient is her name and shows it in italics. There is no reason for the italics (also these entries should sort under Q

For her name in italics, that would be her self-titled album as the recipient, they have now been sorted under "Q"

If the award was "Best New Artist", surely the winner was the artist, not her album.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: You're right -- my bad. Artist of the year or "artist" wins should be credited to the artist. These have been updated. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, you have two rows where the recipient is "Angeline Quinto" and one where it is "Herself" - be consistent

Same as above explanation, the two entries are the self titled album name as the recipient. The one listed as "Herself" would refer to Quinto as the recipient. Revised per above. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recipients which are a song shown in quote marks should sort just on the words, as if the quote marks were not there

Clearly my sorting game has been rusty :) Thanks for catching, fixed now.

• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. I have addressed each point above. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "several awards and nominations": "several" usually means "not many" or "a small number". 29 seems like more than "not many" to me. (Is this a Philippine English thing?)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). The Twitter and Youtube links seem to be official, and are archived. 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. The one image seems fine.
• 6. There were recently reverted edits, but I see no evidence of instability (yet). She will certainly get more awards, but at the moment, I don't think there's a problem with the stability criterion.
• Close enough for a support (assuming you and Chris can reach an agreement on the one point left, above). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review and edits Dank. You are right. I have revised and changed to "many". Much appreciate your support. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: done for these. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: All right. Thank you for your patience with me and sorry for being too nitpicky. When I decided to review this list, I wanted to do my job properly. After looking at the prose and sources, I can support this list's promotion. Nice to see a list related to a Filipina pop figure having such high standards. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, you were doing your due diligence and I highly appreciate the thoroughness. Thank you for your support as well, PanagiotisZois. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) On a separate note, I don't usually do this, but I would appreciate it if you would be willing to review GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, I'd be happy to have a look and review in the next day or so. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the role in Maalaala Mo Kaya, linking "indigenous" to Bagobo feels a bit easteregg-y. Would it be okay to just say she portrays a "Bagobo woman" instead?
• "She won a Golden Screen TV Award for Breakthrough Performance by an Actress for her role" - maybe "for the role" instead of "for her role"

The list is very engaging due to the interesting details about the roles. Great work here.--NØ 04:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your taking this review MaranoFan. I have actioned the above comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to support this list on prose.--NØ 15:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review and your support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image license info is on the list's talk page. Almost every list-link in "See also" is a featured list, so they might be helpful. We're not far now from covering all the flowering plant families. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PresN and I worked up a sidebar with links to the other lists. I think it will help give a sense of how the orders fit together, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Usual faultless work, my only query is with the first words "There are around 27 families" - why "around" 27? That suggests there could actually be more or fewer, but I'm unclear why........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something in the human psyche that likes to think of parent-child relationships as known and fixed. But we're talking about events that happened over 100 mya. Taxonomists don't speak in certainties, they speak in probabilities. The "around" (along with the note at the end of that sentence) was meant as a general reminder of this uncomfortable reality. But I agree that there's a risk that "around" raises a question it doesn't answer ... I can remove it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could remove it, and just change it if the classification changes. Or change it to "27 currently recognised" or similar? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. I went with the former. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For this sentence, (The 27 families are generally placed in 9 orders.), shouldn't nine be written as words instead since it is a number less than ten. I believe you put it in numerals to match the 27, but it still stood out to me on my read-through.

I have read through the list a few times, and I could not find anything major, or even minor, to comment on for this review. I only have one very nitpick-y question, and once that is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "The early-diverging families are generally placed in nine orders". Does that work? - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great to me. Thank you for addressing this point so promptly. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I had a fun time reading this list, and I appreciate the work you have put into it. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you too for responding to the request so quickly. I'll keep an eye out for your lists. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose - I know nothing about this topic, but this list was engaging and informative, and took me down a rabbit hole of flowering plants. Excellent work, as usual, Dank. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • High praise coming from you ... I'm looking forward to your next FLC nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Degeneria vitiensis.png is not licensed appropriately. The given source is the Ukrainian Wikipedia which lists the image as non-free fair use, coming from volume 5 of a Russian plant encyclopedia: Жизнь растений. Энциклопедия в 6 томах (Plant life. Encyclopedia in 6 volumes).
  • Image removed. - Dank (push to talk)
• File:Canella winterana Tree and fruits (cropped).jpg (and its parent file File:Canella winterana Tree and fruits.jpg) seem a bit suspect as there is no attached metadata and all of the other user's uploads are otherwise exclusively from Canada. The deletion notices on the user's page are related to misunderstandings of copyrights from what I can tell and that is unrelated to the other images they regularly upload. I'm going to AGF that the user did indeed take this photo while on a trip.
  • Replaced. - Dank (push to talk)
• All other images are appropriately licensed/sourced.

Review

• I have no concerns aside from the one/two image(s). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for catching those, and for the review. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot the @Cyclonebiskit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good to me now, happy to support :) Excellent work. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I'll give yours a complete review soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah! I remember the Latin pop explosion like it was yesterday. I've been looking forward to nominating 1999 Latin pop for a long time. Anyways, please leave any feedbacks and I'll gladly address them! Erick (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first number one of the year was "Dejaría Todo" by Chayanne, which had been in the top spot since the issue dated December 12, 1998,[3] where it spent a total of seven weeks at this position and was named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year" => "The first number one of the year was "Dejaría Todo" by Chayanne, which had been in the top spot since the issue dated December 12, 1998;[3] it spent a final total of seven weeks at this position and was named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year"
• "was followed by the release of his song, "Livin' la Vida Loca", and became an international success" => "was followed by the release of his song, "Livin' la Vida Loca", which became an international success"
• "and was longest-running number one of the year" => "and was the longest-running number one of the year"
• "where it spent six weeks on the latter chart" => "spending six weeks at number one on the latter chart"
• "Iglesias also had the most chart-toppers in 1999 with two other songs" => "Iglesias also had the most chart-toppers in 1999, also reaching number one with two other songs"
• "the latter a Spanish-language version of "Rhythm Divine" and final number one of the year" => "the latter a Spanish-language version of "Rhythm Divine" which was the final number one of the year"
• Image caption: "He also had the most numbers of the year with three" => "He also had the most number ones of the year with three"
• Image caption: "Chayanne had the first number one of the year with "Dejaría Todo" and was named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year." => "Chayanne had the first number one of the year with "Dejaría Todo", which was named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year."
• "Millie Corretjer (credited as Millie)," - if that's true, shouldn't she be listed as that in the table?
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – "Corretjer was only the female artist to have more than one chart-topper...". "only" and "the" should be reversed here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink crossover
• In regards to Ricky Martin's song, please specify the type of success the song had
• "Corretjer was only the female artist" - needs to be rewritten
• That's all I have. – jona ✉ 18:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I now support this nomination after issues have been addressed. – jona ✉ 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:, @Giants2008:, @AJona1992:, pinging all of three since I believe I took care of everything. Erick (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "|url-status=live" in the only "cite news" template was giving an error message (because you had already set the url-status); I removed it.
• In the table, Luis Miguel should be sorting under "Miguel" (according to the defaultsort in his article). I don't personally have a position on this, but if the name is supposed to sort under "Luis", then change the defaultsort in his article (and let's see what happens), or start a discussion somewhere.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. You've already got a couple of prose supports for the lead, so I'll leave that alone. 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 list 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.
• Close enough for a Support. Well done. I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I can >:(. Just kidding. I'm nominating because I have been working on it on and off for some time now, and I believe it is on par with the other articles. Documentaries are often ignored when it comes to media, but they can be very helpful in informing oneself, especially for people who may not have time to read books. A cross-medium category that includes both film and television documentaries, the only one from this list I've actually seen is The Celluloid Closet, which I'd definitely recommend to anyone interested in the history of Hollywood and portrayal of LGBT characters and themes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "1996 marks the only...." - to avoid starting a sentence with a number, which probably isn't 100% a no-no but (IMO) doesn't look great, how about changing this to something "The award has been shared on [N] occasions; it was given to two documentaries in [year] and [year] and three in 1996, when [X], [Y] and [Z] were all recognized"
• "within two years after completion" => "within two years on completion"
• "The Real World winning for its third season The Real World: San Francisco in 1995, while True Life won for the episode "I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married" in 2005" => "The Real World won for its third season The Real World: San Francisco in 1995, while True Life won for the episode "I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married" in 2005" (not grammatically correct as it stands. If you don't want to repeat "won", maybe replace one with "was recognized")
• Wow, being British it feels really unnatural repeatedly typing "recognized" :-D

• Honestly, it's of the spelling differences in English where I actually prefer the American version over the British one. :P

• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Made the changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The contrast between the green backgrounds and blue links is insufficient for accessibility purposes in Vector 2022 per this website (using #3366CC for the text and #9F9 for the background) – see MOS:COLOR. It was fine in Vector 2010, but the new link colors don't work.
  • The navboxes at the bottom have similar issues, and I suspect the other FLs you've worked on in this field have the same issue now.

• @RunningTiger123: I'm not that experienced with this colour thing. Should I change the green colour to something like #EEDD82 or #FAEB86? The former colour is used in the Oscar, Emmy, and Annie Award articles, including their nav boxes. Other awards like the Hugos or Gaylactic Spectrum Awards use that blue colour. Which one do you recommend I use for here? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I realized after I started that the new link colors are causing the same issue elsewhere (see discussion), so for now, I would just leave it alone until a wider solution can be reached. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to 1st GLAAD Media Awards in the first table should omit parentheses.

• Done.

• It might be useful to insert rows for 1991 and 1993 to make it clearer when no awards were presented.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the only remaining change is the 1991 and 1993 rows, which isn't critical, so I'll support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking documentaries to Documentary film

• @Pseud 14: That is something I thought off, but the problem is that the award has always included both film and television documentaries. If I link just documentary, it takes me to "documentary film". Granted, most awards here are probably film (televised or otherwise), but some documentaries are outright TV series with various episodes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s a fair point. We can def just leave it at that then. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The award has been shared on three occasions -- Just so "The award" isn't repetitive, maybe you can use, It has been jointly awarded on three occasions;

• Altered it.

• As of 2023, the award has been given to 36 documentaries. -- Perhaps "Since its inception, the award has been given" would be a much better replacement, as you have another statement in the last sentence referring to the current year in 2023.

• That's true. Changed it.

• Is there a reason why only Out of Work is red-linked from the table?

• Not really. Removed the red-link.

That's all I have on prose. A very solid and well-written work. Not much else to quibble. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good to me. Happy to support for promotion. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping into the FLC space after very many years with the filmography page of actress Alia Bhatt. Looking forward to some constructive comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Welcome back to FLC! You've done a really good job over the years with actress articles (including lists). I think there's a misconception among some editors that leads like this one are easy to write ... they're not, because you have to weigh sources (most of which have promotional intent, or even promotional content) and make very fine judgments about exactly what you can and can't say in Wikipedia's "voice". Unfortunately, I don't have the skill set to make those judgments. Fortunately, I can get a large chunk of the reviewing work done here, and maybe that will help out the other reviewers.
• For ref #27, I can't tell if the first link is broken or not.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I found nothing to copyedit (apart from adding captions to all 3 tables). I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. (Some might object to sorting "Safina Firdausi" under S, but I think it's an acceptable judgment call, because so many of the roles are known only by a first name.)
  • Note that Chris disagrees below ... that's fine, go with his advice on this. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, but this isn't a source review. A lot of work has gone into improving the UPSD tool over the years; it's marking four citations in yellow, indicating "it depends on how the source is being used", but none of those four are problematic ... they support the given text. 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 one image seem fine. The licensing is a little complicated but it works for me.
• 6. It may or may not be "stable", looking at the edit history; time will tell. I'll give it a pass for now.
• Close enough for a support. Well done.
• Speaking of being promotional, I'll shamelessly promote my latest lists here: List of early-diverging flowering plant families or List of basal superasterid families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. Reviewers needed! - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, Dank. I have replaced ref 27 with a different one anyway. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that where the character she played has a surname, it should sort based on that rather than the forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the prose is excellent. My only suggestions are to link ref. publishers consistently and replace/remove International Business Times as it has been marked as unreliable by WP:RSP. FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I've made the changes. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:23, 13 April 2023 (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.