Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2021

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally just wikilinks to the trails, and there were three separate pages with simple tables for the scenic trails, historic trails, and recreation trails. I suppose I could have gotten a couple FLs and a couple GAs out of that, but sources mainly cover the system as a whole and I thought they'd be better presented together (as I do for many topics), so here they all are with descriptions, history, and details! Learned a ton of history reading way further into these than I needed to to write a few sentences each. I've hiked segments of five NSTs and a handful of NRTs and been to historic sites on five NHTs and the NGT, but now I need to see some more (Ala Kahakai next month!). My other open nomination is ready to be closed, and I appreciate your comments. Reywas92^Talk 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "Due to extent of construction of route realignments" => "Due to the extent of construction of route realignments"?
• Under El Camino Real de los Tejas, I suggest wikilinking proselytization, as it's quite an obscure word (I only know what it means because my son learnt about it in an RE lesson literally a few days ago and asked me if I knew what it meant. I didn't ;-) )
• "Native Americans whose land they intruded" => "Native Americans upon whose land they intruded"
• "Six year into the Revolutionary War" => "Six years into the Revolutionary War"
• That's all I got. Fabulous work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, thanks! Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The table needs a caption (e.g. "|+ National Scenic Trails" or, if you'd prefer it to only show for screen reader software, "|+ {{sronly|National Scenic Trails}}"
• Trail photos need alt text
• --PresN 03:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh I knew that! Y Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• You have Washington, D.C. for ref 12 but not the others—should be for all or none
• generally all caps should be avoided for titles (ref 51)

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• (optional) Recommend archiving links with the bot
• Seems fine in general Aza24 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'll look into how to call the bot. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 00:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pass for source review. By the way, the bot is super easy to use if you're interested. Just go to "view history" — "fix dead links" — (you might have to login here) — "Add archives to all non-dead references" and "analyze". Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Links to external sites in main text are forbidden and should be changed to citations.
  • You mean the laws? Those are built into a template rather than citation formats and are permitted.

• But Template:UnitedStatesCode says "This template links to an external site, the Cornell University Law School U.S. Code database. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Nikkimaria can you advise please? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's correct, ELs are not normally used inline. However, there has been some discussion around using this particular template as an exception to that rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that in this case the templates for the acts should be moved to be citations. As things stand, the last two sentences of this paragraph are unreferenced. Do the acts support the second to last sentence? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking through the uses of this template it's very widely used inline, which I think is a reasonable exception to what is normal. I moved both to footnotes though, but further guidance about the use of these may be warranted. Yes, that sentence is supported by section 1244. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1968, over forty trail routes have been studied for inclusion in the system." I would leave this out. It is the trails actually created which are of interest to the reader.
  • I do believe this is relevant because these studies are ordered by Congress as part of the National Trails System Act and are part of the process for creation, with a study ordered before full designation (though some did not receive that [yet]). It could be worded in better context though.
• "Most of the trails are continuous non-motorized long-distance trails". This implies that some are open to motor vehicles. It would be helpful to give an indication of how many, if available.
  • An IP just changed that last month and I don't know why... Done.
• "this trail dating to the 1920s sees around a thousand thru-hikers each year,". No change needed, but do you know the standard time it takes to do the whole trail?
  • About six months, I know someone who's done it and someone on the trail now!
• "They represent the earliest travels in the country in Chesapeake Bay and on Spanish royal roads". Presumably only the earliest by people of European origin?
  • Ah yes; I just somewhat changed what was there before I started but have added "European".
• "Associated sites along the trail, extended in 2019 to include their preparation along the Ohio River, include their starting point Camp Dubois near Gateway Arch National Park". The second "include" looks wrong to me. I would delete it.
  • Ah no, the middle part of that is a separate clause: Camp Dubois, etc. wasn't part of the extension, which only included their preparation trip. Changed the first one to "encompass" if that's clearer.
• So no trails follow traditional native American routes?
  • No, two do: Natchez Trace NST and Ala Kahakai NHT.
• A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think it would be better to move the templates for the acts to citations, keeping to the rule of no external links in main text, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk)

Image review

Lots of images, but most are from Flickr or uploaded by the commons user.

• File:Yorktown VA NPS 18-pdr cannon.jpg and File:US National Trails System, 50th Anniversary map.jpg – should probably have {{PD-USGov-NPS}} rather than {{PD-USGov}}
• File:NRT Logo.gif – It is a copyrighted file with Non-free media use rationale. It seems to meet the 10 Non-free content criteria policy. I'll suggest to add these links in source of the rationale (1, 2)
• Rest all images are fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. I made minor tweaks, but this is top-notch work, IMO. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for the featured list because I think it has greatly improved from its previous failed nomination. The page was copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I've also fixed the other issues pointed out during the previous reviews. I hope to fix the remaining issues the way I recently did with this successful nomination. Looking for comments and suggestions. Warmest Regards...— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "It featured Macaulay Culkin, Tess Harper, and George Wendt and Jackson" - the two "and"s read a bit oddly here

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The singer's first music video as a solo artist, shows" - no reason for that comma

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was filmed on the 800 Stage stage" - Stage stage?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Darryl wants to prove to his friends private school has not changed him" => "Darryl wants to prove to his friends that private school has not changed him"

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image captions that are complete sentences, like "Paula Abdul appears in the "Liberian Girl" video", need full stops. Those that are not complete sentences don't.

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "reporting on the his eccentric behavior" - there's a stray word in there

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As I see no other issues. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have all been addressed. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, going to straight to the succeeding year after List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1994 and 1995 just became FL. After this FLC, I plan to zigzag with the Latin pop and tropical #1's of each other with the same years. Here goes nothing! Erick (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Víctor Manuelle and Jerry Rivera achieved their first chart-toppers in 1996 and had two number ones in the year" - I would say "Víctor Manuelle and Jerry Rivera achieved their first chart-toppers in 1996 and each had two number ones in the year" for total clarity
• ""Loco de Amor" by Rivera held this position for the longest with seven weeks in a tie Frankie Ruiz's song "Ironía"" - better, I think, to say ""Loco de Amor" by Rivera held this position for seven weeks and tied with Frankie Ruiz's song "Ironía" for the longest run at number one"
• "which also the final number one of the year" => "which was also the final number one of the year"
• Think that's it from me - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks as always! I got everything you brought up. One of these days, I have to return the favor by reviewing one of your Country #1's FLC. Erick (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• No issues (impressively!)

Reliability

• Fine; the established convention is already using Billboard sources for Billboard lists

Verifiability

• No issues
• Welp, not anything to say. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing much to say, except giving my Support for promotion of this nomination as a Featured List, mainly on basis of the prose. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! With 72 of these lists now promoted to FL, here's what I hope will be #73. Notable events in this year include only the third song ever to enter the Hot Country Songs chart at #1, a superstar assemblage of country singers from multiple generations. As ever, I will respond as soon as possible to feedback...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Florida Georgia Line caption needs a period.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comma needed before and Brett Eldredge topped Country
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is which topped both charts. supported by ref 8?
  • No, but I didn't think that phrase needed a citation, as it's self-evident from the table..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Great work as usual. ~ HAL333 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HAL333: - responses above :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I fixed two double redirects, so you might want to check for other double redirects.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything looks good with this list. I made some very minor edits, which were very nitpick-y, but otherwise, I cannot find anything that requires further comments or revisions. I support the article for promotion. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed – this – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• No issues.

Reliability

• Seems fine to me. Most of the citations are from Billboard, appropriate for these type of lists.

Verifiability

• Suggesting to archive all citations. This one was easy to check. Source review – pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been working on this page for a bit–taking after United States congressional delegations from Utah, I added language and citations, added photos by the lists, updated the tables to look nicer, added notes, and cleaned up/culled templates that didn't make sense anymore, and I think this fits the FL criteria now. This is my first FL nomination, so I am and always will be happy to take suggestions! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "meaning that each seat a class determining in which years the seat will be up for election" - think there's either some words missing or too many words here, as this doesn't make sense
• At the start of the House of Representatives section, the exact same paragraph appears twice
• "the first woman of color to serve in the United States Congress from any state" - source?
• "Spark Masayuki Matsunaga" vs "Spark Matsunaga" - any reason for the variation in name?
• That's all I got on a first pass - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Changed the language on that sentence, deleted the extra paragraph, added a source (thanks to the article Patsy Mink for providing a ref to steal), and corrected the variation (it was preserved from the previous table)–thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name.
• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "! colspan=2 | Class 1 senators" should be "!scope=col colspan=2 | Class 1 senators". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "| rowspan=9 | Hiram Fong (R)" should be "!scope=row rowspan=9 | Hiram Fong (R)" --PresN 02:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I have been away from my computer for a while, but it appears all of these have been  Done by others in my absence. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: sorry, second ping here- what's happening with this nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FLC nominations need more reviewer attention than this before they can be closed; there seems to be a lull in activity this month, but I'd recommend reaching out to relevant wikiprojects and editors to see if anyone is willing to review the list. --PresN 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron – That's fine. I have made an edit to add some links. In my opinion, all the major issues have been resolved. The only issue I see is the grey color rectangles in the senate table, between the Class I senators and the congress column (they didn't existed in the previous version). Maybe, that needs to be removed/re-formatted. Else, everything seems to be fine. I have done the Image Review and the Source Review. Since the remaining issue is a minor one, I feel I am ready to Support this article for promotion as a Featured List. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did United States congressional delegations from Indiana long ago so I'm happy to see this one!

• one from both -> one from each
• In caption you can use Map instead of Geographical location. Not a complete sentence so no period. And technically that map didn't take effect until 2013
• ndash after 2012 should have spaces around it or be an emdash
• No comma after House
• I think the lead could include more facts like that Matsunaga, Akaka, and Hirono all served in both houses. Maybe include a count of people who've served in each house and total, like the Utah and Indiana lists. Since the delegation is so small you could even mention all of them, not just Hirono. Up to you what else you can think of but the lead's a bit short.
• "Hawaii's senators are elected in classes 1 and 3." but then the table says Class I and Class II.
• "from 1963–2012" -> "from 1963 to 2012"
• "The territory initially consisted of the Hawaiian Islands, with the exception of Baker Island, Canton Island, Enderbury Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, and Midway Atoll." I don't understand this sentence, these aren't part of the Hawaiian Islands so they're not exceptions.
• "to be succeeded" -> "succeeded"
• There's a stray semicolon before ref 13, seems like the "Hawaii had one seat" sentence belonged there instead of the end of the paragraph.
• "both of Hawaii's representatives to the United States" -> "both of Hawaii's representatives"
• The first two tables had (D) and (R) in the key but this one doesn't, be consistent
• "from 1986–1987 and from 1991–2010" see https://style.mla.org/words-with-dash-in-range/
• All of the see also links are in the article already so the section should just be removed
  • For this point, instead of removing the section, you may add other lists like United States congressional delegations from Indiana, Utah, etc. But it doesn't matters much, and could also be removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Template at the bottom missing {

Reywas92^Talk 16:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Thanks! Apologies for the delay. Almost everything on the list is  Done, but I want to talk to another user about the party abbreviations—I'm not sure if they're so necessary in general. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Support once the abbrevations are resolved for all or none of the keys. Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 15:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I removed all of the party abbreviations–with the keys at the top of every table, I don't believe it to be necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were re-added per MOS:COLOR so i made it consistent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (I fixed a couple date formats and removed the "english" language parameters as that field is only for non-english languages); promoting. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list after working on getting the singer's list of songs and awards to FL status. It has gone through a copy-edit to improve the lead. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated.

A pre-emptive comment re sourcing – I've struggled with finding reliable sources for music videos specifically dating back in the 80s and 90s (e.g. MTV, Billboard and the likes). Unlike in the U.S., the Philippine music scene is quite devoid of music video promotion and charts. I utilized a website/artist page that compiled a screenshot of videos released, which perhaps can be an acceptable substitute. As well, I have used verified/official YouTube channels (per WP:RSPYT) for the more recent ones. I’ve sought guidance before nominating and Aza24 was kind enough to provide clarity. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• In the film table, "Mars Ravelo's Captain Barbell" sorts under C for Captain. If the title of the film was Mars Ravelo's Captain Barbell, it should sort under M

Film title corrected, it was in fact released as Captain Barbell in 2003. Same correction made under music videos too.

• The notes in the stage table are not full sentences, so they shouldn't have full stops

Removed full stops

• Same for the notes in the video albums table

Done

• Description column in the commercials table should not be sortable

Fixed

• Some of the refs in the commercials table have the company (eg Ariel (detergent)) as the author. These should be shown as the publisher, not the author.

Done for the refs noted, switched from author to publisher

• That's all I got - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review ChrisTheDude! I have addressed the above comments, let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Much appreciated! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and support, ChrisTheDude! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this list for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current peer review on a more obscure singer. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your review and support Aoba47! Happy to look at your peer review this week. Take care Pseud 14 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 00:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL333! Pseud 14 (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions- e.g. at the top of each table code put `|+ table_caption_text`. If this text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can hide it from visual browsers like |+ {{sronly|table_caption_text}}. This allows non-visual screen reader software to jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text above it to find it. --PresN 16:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PresN, I missed this one. Done per these changes. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [7]

Formatting

• Is "Journal Online Ph" the People's Journal? Would link if so
• Ref 9 missing link to work

Reliability

• Considering the subject matter, fine overall. The potential issue already discussed (and explained in the nom statement)

Verifiability

• Checked a few for statistical information—no issues
• The two issues seem far too minor to prevent a source review pass. I would still attend to them at some point though. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aza24, I have addressed the two points above. Appreciate your time in doing the review. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; promoted. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this on and off across the past few months or so. I think it is more or less at FL level, though it's been rather a while since I worked on lists. I found the topic super interesting, and hope you will too. I've created or rewritten articles on 10 of the memoirs in addition, increasing the proportion of articles substantially. Any comments welcome. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating list! Doing this now. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Right now there are three different ways of formatting dates in the refs—they should be standardized to one or the other
  • this should have gotten them
• ref 7 missing retrieval date
  • Removed ref, it's cited in the other sources (which came out after the release)
• ref 1 should be in a template like the others
  • Converted to cite news, which is what I think you're looking for
• the Guardian should be capitalized ('The)
  • Done
• Hmm pretty sure "AP NEWS" should be "AP News"—maybe just do "Associated Press" to be safe?
  • Done
• ref 9 missing author
  • added
• the ", 1962" seems to be missing from the title of ref 12
  • Added
• Deadline should probably be the "work" for ref 7
  • Cut as mentioned above
• Recommendations:
  • Put the further reading into a template so the formatting is the same as the books in the refs
    • Done
  • Perhaps put Reuters as the author for ref 8 since it's clear that its not just an NBC staff member writing it?
    • • Converted to cite news, work=Reuters via= NBC News. Does that work?
        • Yeah that works too, good idea!
  • Archive the links with the bot
    • Loosed the bot

Reliability

• Looks good

Verifiability

• Sorry to be a nuisance, but I'm not sure its clear where the publisher and year information for the individual books is coming from Aza24 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was intending the identifiers to supply sufficient information to identify the book-- we allow, for instance the books to cite themselves in 'bibliography' sections of FAs, I think-- I was thinking of it like a spread-out cite book template, though I could just cite separately if you want. Let me know. Many thanks, Aza24, should be all handled. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm okay, I suspected something like that. For the OCLCs I don't see a huge deal, since they link directly to World Cat which has all the information. But the ISBNs don't, making verifiability a bit hard since the reader wouldn't know what to click from there. Part of me wonders if you should include both... any ideas or thoughts? Also, I'd add a retrieval date to ref 6, since you have ones for the other ISSN and JSTOR refs. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aza24 I mean, it's been done on FLs such as List of Maya Angelou works... I'd be happy to add OCLCs (and potentially LCCNs) to all if you think that would be better (as at Madonna bibliography). Let me know. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For verifiability's sake, the OCLCs would certainly be helpful. LCCNs might be overkill, but up to you in the end. This isn't a huge point (and I'd be happy to pass the source review regardless), but the OCLCs are such a direct way to the information cited, it seems a waste not to include. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Aza24 Better? Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The lead is very short, I'd be tempted to merge it with the history section (and move the image to the top)
  • Done-- does it look OK still?
• "....FLOTUS had memoirs published in their lifetime" - why not "FLOTUS had memoirs published in her lifetime"? They are all women.....
  • Done
• "Every first lady after Betty Ford has published at least one memoir." - not true - you specifically note later in the article that Melania has not published a memoir
• "Since then, every first lady has written and published at least one memoir about their life" - again, not true
  • Switched the two to "most first ladies"
• Several names are linked multiple times in the history section, they only need to be linked once each
  • Done
• Jill Biden's memoir was published before she became FLOTUS. Any others in this category? Worth mentioning in the text?
  • Just biden, I think, had memoirs published prior to, though Clinton and Roosevelt definitely wrote about their careers outside of being FLOTUS. Sources don't really mention it, but I've added a note.
• Notes which are not full sentences should not have full stops
  • done, though I may have over-corrected
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, ChrisTheDude, all points responded to, what do you think now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

• Add Alt text to the image.

Done (correctly, I think)

• In note 7, "FLOTUS" should probably be replaced by "First lady of the United States", or just "First lady".

Done

• There is an issue with the sorting. Hillary Clinton (with the book What Happened) is sorted between Julia Grant and Lady Bird Johnson.

Done

• Add links to newspapers, websites or journals in the Citations (various like The Washington Post, USA Today, etc.)

Done, I guess

@Eddie891 – Ping me whenever you address those issues. Thanks for your work so far. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh, what do you think now? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 – The changes look good. Overall, the list seems fine, and the only image is in Public Domain (published before 1926). I have made an edit to the list, making minor changes. I feel, I am in position to Support this list for promotion as a Featured list. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why would the very first sentence mention published correspondence if these are not memoirs and not included in the table? Fair to discuss Adams in the lead but that shouldn't be there if it's not elsewhere too.
  • Cut the mention of correspondence in the lede
• The second paragaph has weird organization, going from who the first lady is to Adams's correspondence to a book that wasn't even real letters(?).
  • Rearranged somewhat, is it better? Also, the source does say that Cutts was the author, but upon further research this seems to be an oversimplification, I've attempted to clarify. There's definitely a stand alone article there.
• "several First Ladies" be consistent with capitalization since this is lowercase elsewhere
  • -> lowercase
• "After Taft, several First Ladies wrote their own memoirs, including Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lady Bird Johnson. In the 1930s Grace Coolidge published her memoirs as several articles in The American Magazine." This is weird, why are those three just listed by name, while Coolidge, who was between Wilson and Roosevelt, has her own sentence?
  • Combined Coolidge, the list of people is all first ladies to Betty Ford
• "Memoirs by presidential spouses were uncommon until the publication of Betty Ford's in the 1970s." This seems like it should go earlier in the paragraph; you've already listed the exceptions to "uncommon" before this statement. Maybe move the first part earlier, and then say "Most first ladies since Betty Ford..."
  • Reorganized. Better?
• Why isn't there a citation for "bright, witty, delightfully entertaining reminiscences" since this is a quotation? This alone also doesn't support the previous claim that they were trivial or for women.
  • It's in the cite that follows (the WaPo article). I'm not aware of there being a requirement that citations immediately follow quotes, but I've duplicated anyways. The WaPo article specifically comments on how Wilson and Taft's were considered not super revealing and specifically highlights the contrast.
• "was criticized for excessively" also unsourced
  • Ditto
• "Early published memoirs...for instance" speaks broadly, but Taft's and Wilson's were the only early published memoirs, so since the paragraph describes both it's not like you're just giving an example of several.
  • Removed "For instance"
• Then it describes Roosevelt making a shift to politics from personal life, but her first memoir This Is My Story (memoir) is still personal and pre-politics content so maybe give that in this context.
  • I mean the memoir was published in '37 when FDR had been president for four years and that isn't really what the source says; it describes all four memoirs as not emphasizing personal life.
• Barbara Bush can be linked in the lead
  • Done
• Use "Memoirs" or something desciptive as the section header instead of just "List"
  • Done
• No issues with the table! Very interesting overall.

Reywas92^Talk 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Pinging Eddie891 just to ensure that they saw the above suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping I somehow missed this. Thank you very much for the comments, Reywas92, what do you think about my responses? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All addressed well, thanks, great list! Any comments for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would also be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; promoted. --PresN 18:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL, and promotion of this list would help me in modifying 50 other similar lists. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which the state of Arkansas participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series but first wanted to finalize the structure of the list, which would be best done during this process. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. Check this page for progress. Thanks! (49 states + Washington D.C. more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass for image licensing (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – this seems like a good template for other lists, and if you choose to keep pursuing them, that would be a great addition to Wikipedia. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Very interesting topic for a list. If this is going to be a series in the future (which I'd love to see), one thing that might be useful is noting any home-state candidates. For Arkansas, I know about Bill Clinton off the top of my head and there may be others I'm not aware of. If nothing else, mentioning this would help explain how he got a majority in 1992. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008 – Thanks! I have added in a footnote that Arkansas was the home state of Bill Clinton (couldn't find any other candidate). Would surely consider mentioning candidates with home state in other lists. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Any comments for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Trails System/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @PresN – Hi! Can I mark this nomination in the grey box on WP:FLC as a Source review is required? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Please do! --PresN 18:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: – The nomination is now open for a month. With three comprehensive reviews, all resolved, and a passed image and source review. "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN – Sorry for another ping, but "Is there a consensus for promotion of this nomination?" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I'm happy to nominate another list of municipalities in Mexico (9, nearly 10, states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard. We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Opening sentence could do with a comma after "seven municipalities" to break up the flow a bit Done
• In the second sentence, twenty-fourth is spelt incorrectly Done
• "The largest municipality by population is Benito Juárez, with 911,503 residents" - no need for that comma Done
• "Cozumel is fourth largest municipality by population." => "Cozumel is the fourth largest municipality by population." Done
• The state capital indicator is against the municipality. Should it be against the city? Surely it is the city that is the capital? Done
• Note a contains "in 2011" twice, no need for both  Done
• Think that's all I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude for the review! All changes were made, no questions, all easy fixes. Mattximus (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Southeast should be lowercase if it's just directional and not a named region  Done
• "is the 19th largest"  Done
• Can you clarify "administratively autonomous of the state" for me, is it any different from us counties? Can't tell from the responsibilities so I'm not sure why it would be stated that way
• Cite [6] to the handbook doesn't work, but I don't think slaughterhouse regulation needs to be enumerated, seem oddly specific among types of facilities

• Darn, the link died. As it is a book I believe it's still acceptable without a link. Unfortunately there is no archive of the page either. Mattximus (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Othón P. Blanco isn't the state capital, Chetumal is, right? I see this is consistent across the states but it seems the municipality shouldn't be highlighted for these.  Done

• I moved the dagger to Chetumal so it matches the legend, is that sufficient?

Otherwise nice as usual. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Support Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• It appears that Reywas's review is proceeding nicely ... I'll check back to make sure in a few days.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. Most reviewers frown on linking countries (Mexico) ... I can see a reason for linking it once, and I'm not complaining, but if any other reviewer objects, then I'll agree that the link should go. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. ("rowspan=2" is unexpected, but it's not screwing anything up.) I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any 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. The images add a lot, and aren't problematic.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "of Benito Juárez in " overlinked.  Done
• "by a plurality voting system who heads" because of parenthetical interruption, this reads weird, like the "who heads" relates to the voting system, suggest a gentle re-word.  Done
• You could link Federal government of Mexico.  Done
• "and user fees" what does this mean?

• I think it refers to fees to use municipal facilities or programs, but I'm not sure. This was translated from Spanish by someone else so as a non-Spanish speaker cannot tell if there is an elaboration on this point or not...

• "The largest municipality.." suggest this is caveated with "As of 2020..."  Done
• "12,939.30 km2 (4,995.89 sq mi)" probably don't need second decimal place of accuracy, plus the table has "4,995.5" as the sq mi conversion, so something's not quite right here.
• I don't see all those incorporation dates in ref 9.  Done

  Amazing catch! The pdf link was linked to the wrong page, easy fix, but great find! Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Table has more than two sort outcomes for each numerical column for me.  Not done

• Same for me, and I have no idea how to fix this, I've never encountered this problem before, any ideas? Mattximus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems strange to have two columns for area but to have both units in a single column for population density.

• Yep I don't have a strong opinion. I formatted this off of someone else's style but then I standardized it to dozens of featured lists, so they are all like this now. I'm hesitant to change just this one so it's different from the dozens of others just like it....

• Ref 1 needs en-dash in title, not spaced hyphen. Done
• Retrieval date formats in refs should be consistent. Done
• ISBN formats should be consistent. Done
• Ref 4, PDF is ~250 pages, so page numbers required.

• This is an interesting one, the reference is for the state having it's own constitution, not a specific page from the constitution. Any thoughts?

• Ref 8 needs en-dash.  Done
• As does ref 11. Done

That's enough on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• I see you have a trans-title for ref 7, for consistency and verifiability I would recommend adding to all  Done
• for refs 3 and 4 it is a little odd that the Article/Act names are only in English, while the title is only in spanish. I would recommend using both (like the titles above)

• I think I see what you are saying. To use Artículo instead of Article? I agree with you but the template provided spits out English regardless of initial language. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I'm not really sure what I was thinking with something this minor—it seems fine how it is, and would perhaps be a little silly to add "artículo"! Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 11 is missing a publisher/work  Done
• You have "Mexico:" for ref 9 but not for any of the other INEGI refs  Done

Reliability

• Seems fine

Verifiability

• recommendation: add "trans-title=" to non-english sources  Done
• Is there a page number(s) available for ref 4? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting one and you are the second reviewer to ask this. I cited this reference to show that the state has it's own constitution. I don't refer to any not a specific page from the constitution, just the fact that it exists and if anyone wants to read it they can click it. Any thoughts? Mattximus (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I would see maybe add a "See" before the template, e.g. <ref>See {{cite... </ref> perhaps? Not really an issue either way now that you've explained the reasoning. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the source review! I've completed all the recommendations but I have 2 questions outstanding for you. Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I'm not sure how I missed this (twice now!). I've left responses to both items in question, but neither issue is pertinent enough to prevent a pass. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I'm ok with adding "see" or not, doesn't really matter to me, there is no see in the other noms so it may be easier to leave as is. But thank you for the review! Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination appears to have stalled, I do have two supports, but just pinging Reywas92, The Rambling Man, Aza24 who have done a review but have not indicated if their recommendations have been completed to their satisfaction. Thanks for the reviews! Mattximus (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services". But it seems not all as you say the council only assists in education etc.  Done
• "The municipal council consists of a variable number of trustees and councillors" This ambiguous whether you mean variable within councils at different times or between different municipalities. Are the trustees nominated? If so, maybe "The municipal council consists of nominated trustees and elected councillors"

• You may be correct but I'm not sure myself of how they are nominated/elected so I can't with certainty change the wording, but to answer your first case variable number of trustees/ councillors. I'm happy to change this any other way, but I just want to be sure that it is accurate.

• Maybe just "The municipal council consists of trustees and councillors". Dudley Miles (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Done[reply]

• "although more funds are obtained from the state and federal governments than from their own income." This seems wrong as funds from govts are also income. "than locally".  Done
• Having three notes in four columns looks odd to me.

• Agree.  Done

• Looks fine. Just a few minor quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! Excellent suggestions, made all but one which I queried above. Mattximus (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass

• License of all the images seem fine. Most of them are released by the wiki commons user, rest one is from Flickr. Pass for image licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list comprises all of the protected cruisers built by the French Navy in the 1880s and 1890s, some 33 ships in total, which filled a variety of roles. Their designs also represented the strategic and doctrinal fighting in the French naval command, between factions who favored a strong main fleet in French waters, those who preferred the long-range commerce raiders needed by the Jeune Ecole, and those who wanted a fleet based on colonial requirements. The list is the capstone to this topic, and it passed a Milhist A-class review earlier this year (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "that relied heavy belt armor! - missing word
  • Good catch
• Some of that first paragraph doesn't seem to be covered in the body so needs sourcing in the lead
  • I went through line by line, and I think the only thing that isn't explicitly mentioned in the body is the specific bit about strategic confusion, so I've added a citation for that - let me know if there's something I overlooked
• North American station vs North Atlantic Station vs North Atlantic station - should the last word have a capital?
  • It's not the official title, so I don't think so
• That's all I got on a first pass - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Chris! Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• All images need alt text
  • Added
• All tables need a caption using either |+ your caption or |+ {{sronly|your caption}}
  • Added - forgot to put those on
• Some armaments include measurements in inches while others don't – pick one format or the other

• The units are converted at first use and not subsequently - this is pretty standard practice

• • Similarly, some propulsion measurements note km/h and mph while others don't
    • As above
• Under Linois class, "2,285 to 2,318 long tons (2,322 to 2,355 t)" → "2,285–2,318 long tons (2,322–2,355 t)"
  • Done
• If possible, find some type of identifier for Stowell & Munro, Glennon, and "The New Port of Bizerte"
  • Added all three
• Navbox "Warships of France" has a redlink as the heading; the navbox should probably be removed or the redlink amended
  • Redlinks are fine per WP:REDLINK - at some point, we'll get around to creating the overarching list.
    • I would still suggest removing the link from the navbox; it kind of defeats the point of finding related articles if the article doesn't exist, and as the title, it probably doesn't need a link. But I won't haggle over this detail, it's just my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RunningTiger! Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing. I'm assuming that RunningTiger's review will be successful; I'll check back to make sure.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine in the lead, and you've already got two reviews on prose ... I'm assuming if another one is needed, someone will let me know. I added one word to the lead; although plural verbs with singular subjects are gaining in popularity every year, I'm still not completely comfortable with that. Otherwise, the writing is excellent (no surprise there). The coding at the top of the tables seems fine. I 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 article is well-sourced, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review and I don't speak Polish). I know from many years' experience that your ship sources are reliable.
• 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. If you're looking for a list to review, you might want to skip my current nomination (it's got a long table) and take a look at List of plant family names with etymologies (much shorter); I'll be nomming that one as soon as the current nom gets one more support. (And you can even skip the rows that include namesakes if you like ... they will have been reviewed in other lists.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: that will be the nom after my next nom. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The sources are all reliable (AGF on the Polish ones), and despite the age of some of the journals, and one or two books, there is no problem with that given the time period of the subject, nature of the refs and what they are being used for. Two minor things: Everett and Parkinson need locations for consistency, and it is Houghton Mifflin not Houghton Miflin. The first Brassey listed should probably be the one linked, as it is the same guy AFAIK. Is there a numerical identifier, location and publisher available for Ship Management International? What about a location for Twardowski? Spotchecks not conducted due to Nate's long history at FLC. Just a side issue, the Warships of France navbox has a redlink at the top? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Curiously, Everett doesn't have a location, not in the scan of the book or in Worldcat. And the first Brassey is actually the father - he's linked now. I think the rest are taken care of. As for the navbox link, RunningTiger mentioned that above, but I don't think it's an issue. I'll get around to doing that list at some point ;) Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. OK, this looks fine now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. With 71 of the lists now promoted to FL, here's what I hope will be #72. We are definitely on the home stretch now :-) In this particular year, Sam Hunt broke the record for the longest run at number one on Hot Country Songs, but this record would only stand until the following year. Fun fact: the same artist ended both Hunt's record run and the next record run..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Backstreet Boys, an extremely successful pop act since the 1990s": I'm not up to speed on FLC standards for promotional language in media articles. Consulting Backstreet Boys, I find that they "rose to superstardom". Yeah. This is pretty tame by comparison. I don't like it, but I'm behind the times.
• The last artist column isn't sorting right ... Brett Eldredge, for instance.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting and sampled (and fixed) 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 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, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the bad sorting and toned down the description of BSB.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a super nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. For this part, and subsequently guested on "What Ifs", I am uncertain about the "guested" word choice as it is honestly not something I see when discussing music. I would instead use "featured" (in a way that fits this part, of course) as I think that is the wordage more often used for this kind of thing.

This is my only comment for this list. Wonderful work as always and once this very nitpick-y comment is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are doing well. Just out of curiosity, how many more Billboard number-one country songs are left for you now? Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - made that change. There's five more to go after this one to complete the run from 1944-2020. Assuming those are all successful (and 2021 as well, if it takes long enough for those five to pass that we are nearly at the end of the year), I then plan to nominate List of Billboard number-one country songs, and assuming that is successful then nominate the whole lot at WP:FTC. And then I guess I need to find a new project...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work with this list as always. I support it for promotion and best luck with the remaining lists! Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I tried but couldn't find anything. Solid work. ~ HAL333 16:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Billboard linking is inconsistent, e.g. links are on refs 10, 11 and 17 but not 18–120 or 4

@Aza24: - should all be linked now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend "|url-access=limited" for NYT ref
• Recommend archiving links

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• checked a few, all pan out as expected. Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added about 200 reliable sources, merged all tables into one, and expanded the lead to FL-quality. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]