Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2022

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list as part of the 2022 Latin music edit a thon competition. This is a list of songs written by Ricky Vela, who was a keyboardist for Selena y Los Dinos, spanning the years 1986 through 2003. – jona ✉ 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

• "a collaborative effort with the producer of the group A.B" - earlier he was referred to as A.B. Quintanilla. Is he primarily known simply as "A.B."?

• Yes

• "became her first critically acclaim single" => "became her first critically acclaimed single"

• Done

• "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group, Roger Garcia and A.B." - multiple issues here. Firstly, if "the guitarist of the group" refers just to Garcia then you need a comma after his name. Secondly "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group" - than to whom?

• Done

• "In 1989, Selena signed with EMI Latin, stepping away from the Texas indie labels they recorded under" - if the subject is Selena, why is the pronoun "they" used in the second clause?

• Done

• "Vela wrote "Tengo Ganas de Llorar" for Selena's eponymous debut." - you previously said she released an album in 1986, so how can she only now be releasing her debut album?

• Done

• "Vela wrote "No Debes Jugar" for Selena Live!," - as the previous sentence talked about a track on the same album, I would suggest saying "Vela also wrote". Also you need a semi-colon rather than a comma after Selena Live!

• Done

• "hid the lyrics that he wrote from it" - what's "it"?

• His feelings

• Then write "and hid the lyrics that he wrote based on these feelings". What is there currently doesn't make grammatical sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Abraham" - per MOS:SURNAME, subjects should not be referred to by their forename only

• Not done. Selena, A.B., Suzette, and Abraham all share the same surname.

• Then write his full name. Forename should never be used by itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vela continued an active presence" = "Vela remained an active presence"

• Done

• "with his final songwriting credit "Contigo"" - assuming he is not dead, how do we know it was his final credit? He might write more....

• Well he has not received any writing credits in the last two decades, so "Contigo" is his last known songwriting credit.

• That's what I got on a first pass. I haven't looked at the table yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! – jona ✉ 18:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed everything you brought to my attention. – jona ✉ 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• My only comments on the table are that people's names in the writer(s) column should be written in full and linked each time, and that names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P)
• The note is not a complete sentence so it should not have a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done – jona ✉ 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies if I was unclear above - when I said "names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename" I did not mean that you needed to show the surnames of artists even if they did not use their surnames publicly (i.e. Selena, Thalia). You should still just show the names under which the artists released their music (eg just show Selena for Selena). But if that name consists of a forename and a surname, the sorting should be based on the surname (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P). Also, you don't need to write "Astudillo, Pete", you can use a sorting template e.g. put {{sortname|Pete|Astudillo}} This will still make it appears as Pete Astudillo but will make it sort under A -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, I believe I have fixed those issues now. Thanks – jona ✉ 22:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed one for you (Leones Del Norte is a group, not a person with the surname "Del Norte" so is fine to sort under L) and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your support and review. – jona ✉ 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the note. Thanks – jona ✉ 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First line is a bit of a slog. Maybe you could just introduce him as a songwriter from X who has written songs since Y, and then in a subsequent sentence discuss the groups in detail.

•  Done

• A. B. Quintanilla has a spaced between the . and the B.

•  Done

• "resurgence in popularity in the 21st century" why?

•  Done

• "in Who Was...Selena? (2018), " I don't think that's the link you're looking for.

•  Done

• "Chris Perez," missing a diacritic.

•  Done

• "Vela written "Quiero..." do you mean "wrote"?

•  Done

• "certified platinum" include "certified" in the link.

•  Done

• "Ricky Vela often collobrated with A.B. Quintanilla (pictured), " spacing again, and I normally see (pictured) in italics.

•  Done

• In a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time, check the Album and Artist columns.

•  Done

• Our article on Dulce Amor calls it Dulce amor.

•  Done

• Cruz Martinez is missing a diacritic.

•  Done

That's enough for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review, I believe I addressed everything. Best – jona ✉ 18:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

• The lede's two paragraphs are quite long. Is there a way that this information can be divided into smaller paragraphs? I also think some of the information can be trimmed.
• Leones Del Norte should be wikilinked (even if it is a redlink) or removed if not notable.

•  Done

• "a collaborative effort with the producer of the group A. B. Quintanilla," In the previous sentence, A. B. Quintanilla was introduced as a person. Why is he now part of a group?

•  Done

• "and became her first critically acclaimed single." Who is the her referred to in this sentence?

•  Done

• ""Dame tu Amor" was the first recording Vela cowrote with the manager of the group," which group?

•  Done

• "Following the release of Netflix's limited two-part drama Selena: The Series (2020—21)," -> "Following the release of Selena: The Series," If the reader wants to know more about the series, they can click on the wikilink.

•  Done

• "According to authors Max and Kate Bisantz in Who Was...Selena? (2018), during the 1980s, Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group, Roger Garcia, and A. B. Quintanilla, than to the women of the group." I don't think this sentence is necessary and can be deleted.

•  Done

• "In 1989, Selena signed with EMI Latin, stepping away from the Texas indie labels she recorded under." This is too much information about Selena, considering that this is a list of Ricky Vela's songs. I suggest deleting this

•  Done

• " Chris Pérez, who replaced Garcia in late 1990 as the guitarist of the group, praised Vela's songwriting on Entre a Mi Mundo as being creative with the utilization of "heavy arrangements".[8] Music critic Rene Cabrera credited Vela as a songwriter on Entre a Mi Mundo, an album Cabrera called a "barn-burner"." I don't think commentary on his songwriting ability should be in this article. Instead, this would be better placed in Ricky Vela.

•  Done

• "Vela wrote "Quiero Estar Contigo" (1992) for Tejano music band Leones del Norte, his first songwriting credit outside of Selena." This is missing a citation.

• I remove it and just added the year.

• "Vela had romantic inclinations toward the drummer of the group, Suzette Quintanilla, which he kept private from her. After hearing of her wedding to Bill Arriaga in September 1993, Vela wrote of his feelings of betrayal and unrequited love and hid the lyrics that he wrote based on these feelings. Vela eventually provided Selena with the lyrics and she recorded the song for Amor Prohibido.[12] According to Abraham Quintanilla, Selena provided an emotional delivery while recording the track and was seen sobbing in the recording studio because "she knew how [Vela] felt" about Suzette.[13] This was dramatized in the second-part Selena: The Series, released in 2021.[14]" I think all of this should be moved to "No Me Queda Más" and deleted from this article, as this is off-topic for what this list is. The longer the lede is, the less likely people are to read the article.

•  Done

• "which was written for A. B. Quintanilla's Kumbia Kings group in 2003." Kumbia Kings was already introduced as A. B. Quintanilla's group in the first paragraph, so this can be "which was written for Kumbia Kings in 2003."

•  Done

Those are my comments on the lede. Please ping me if there are any questions or when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Thanks for your review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Best – jona ✉ 23:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The following citations listed in the "Works Cited" are not currently used in the article. I suggest using them as references or removing them:

• Bisantz, Kate; Bisantz, Max (2018)
• Cabrera, Rene (September 4, 1992).

• Fletcher, Michael; Getz, Robert P.; Fletcher, Nathan; Morales, Joe (March 1999).
• Ramirez, Erika (October 8, 2011)
• Vaval, Natalie (May 20, 2021).

• Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: I have removed them. Best – jona ✉ 23:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Thank you for your support! Best – jona ✉ 00:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:, @PresN: I really don't want this to be archived due to lack of sufficient support, were there any more issues that need to be fixed? Best – jona ✉ 14:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just check the accuracy and consistency of links to Dulce Amor? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have fixed them. Thanks – jona ✉ 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! – jona ✉ 14:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources look okay throughout the page, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your source review! – jona ✉ 14:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all of the Triple Crown (snooker) event finals. Recently created, would love to get it up to FL. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead seems incredibly short at just 1024KB (way too short for a DYK). Is there really no more to say?
  • Hmm, I suppose the only things we could really add would be broadcasters and such, but that's more about the events than a list of winners. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the Season column formatted differently for the Masters than the other two?
  • Fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 2 does not support the claim that the WSC is considered part of the Triple Crown but only since 1969, in fact as far as I can see it doesn't support anything in that sentence
  • I've reworded to only have the facts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Winner and runner-up columns should sort on surname, not forename
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Date formatting in the refs is not consistent (also ref 1 has no dates at all)
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there anything else ChrisTheDude. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• I'm not sure it's even covered in the main Triple Crown article, but I think there should be a mention that the idea of a snooker "triple crown" was applied retrosepctively. I have a feeling the phrase wasn't even mentioned in snooker until something like the late 1990s.
  • I only found one suitable ref that kind of talks around it. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing the support for this in The Guardian source. (Capitalise The, if retained). If it's not in sources then better to omit it here. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't recall any sources on this TBH. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't found anything earlier than the 1999 quote mentioned at Talk:Triple_Crown_(snooker)/GA1. Clive Everton used the term in an Independent article a few weeks later. In an Irish Independent article published on 5 May 2003, Phil Yates refers to "the game's unofficial triple crown". I think it really only became a thing when the Triple Crown Series icon came out in 2020, but it is a thing, so best to avoid the retro discussion (that I started; sorry!) in this list article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 1, 2 - as per ChrisTheDude's comments.
  • I've done a reword Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 3 - CueSport book page 10 does not mention Masters being a triple crown event, and doesn't mention the UK Championship at all.
  • Yeah, this now just says that they were founded in these years, not that the source states they are part of the triple crown, which is sourced elsewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ronnie O'Sullivan has contested a record 29 finals, winning 21." Isn't sourced. Are readers expected to count entries in the tables? (Presumably that's how "Players to appear in multiple finals" is derived, as that doesn't have any sources either.)
  • That's a WP:COUNT things. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CALC? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's the one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Source 4, from 2013, says Robertson is the "eighth player" to win the triple crown, does not support "Eleven players have won each of the events at least once"
  • There's a new source that specifically names them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how source 5 supports "Ray Reardon, who won the world championship on six occasions and the Masters once was unable to reach a UK Championship final.[5]"
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs on the UK Championship finals table are untidy- some cited at header, others against years.
• Refs inconsistent between, e.g. World Snooker Tour, worldsnooker.com. World Snooker. (I think some will be published by WPBSA as they date back before WS/WST.)
• The refs at the end of "List of Masters finals[28]" aren't very helpful, just refer to other refs., and I don't think they are the right ones anyway. (e.g. the Turner link is to his World Championship page)
  • That's a WP:BUNDLING thing. I've removed the stray Masters ref.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The examples in WP:BUNDLING show the sources when hovered over, not just other reference numbers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have expanded these out, but I don't particularly think this looks better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 1972 World Championship final score was probably 37–31 (see Talk:1972_World_Snooker_Championship)
  • Oh yes, done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• List of World Snooker Championship winners - most recent source was accessed in 2019, but the list goes up to 2022. Again, I don't think just pointing to other refs is very helpful here.
  • Yeah, that's pretty normal, I can update the access-date on the snooker.org ref if you want. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that woudl be better. "Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2011." doesn't look right for something going up to 2022. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look after your responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "called the "modern era" of snooker" - needs a bit of rephrasing. The era is since 1969.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "non-ranking Masters" - as this is the only reference to "ranking" in the intro, either wikilink it or explain.
  • Removed, not really relevant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I made a couple of very minor amends. I'm satisfied that this article meets the featured list criteria. The into is short, but I believe it adequately meets criterion 2. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 10.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work, so image review passes.
• You shouldn't use italics for BBC Sport, Eurosport, Eurosport UK, Sky Sports, Snooker.org, "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk", or "worldsnooker.com"
  • But these aren't publishers, so they should be listed under |work on cite web, which is what I have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "snookerscene.co.uk" is redundant for the refs already naming Snooker Scene
  • I've done some fixes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Date formats should be consistent within references, which in this case should be DMY per MOS:DATE
• ,I've run a script for this Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For the tables of winners, it looks like you tried to cite whole boxes with one general ref (or bundle) at the top, so is there a particular reason some individual listings have their own citations while others don't?
  • I've removed the errant refs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Cheers SNUGGUMS, I've made the changes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can use "agency" field to remove the erroneous italics that "work" and "website" parameters auto-generate for some reason. Also, there's a formatting error with ref#19, and I forgot to mention that The Guardian should start with a capital T. Not so sure about using italics for "World Snooker Tour". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But these aren't agencies. That would be something like the Associated Press. If the cite web template is wrong for italicizing website/work information, that would be an issue with that template, not this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I'll support the nomination, just be sure to link BBC Sport in ref#1 as well as Snooker Scene within ref#6. Hopefully the template can be adjusted so it doesn't add those italics by default (at least for website). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - one thing I only just noticed (maybe it wasn't like that before) - why are there two separate groups of categories at the bottom of the article, one inside the usual box and the other oddly floating above it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It really feels like the lead is inadequate for what we're looking to be "among the best content on Wikipedia". Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to expanding to include entry criteria for each of the Triple Crown events, perhaps what the winners of each event got etc.
  • I've added a bit. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One image in the lead and then nothing? The rest of the list looks pretty bleak with just tables and nothing to enhance the reader's experience.
  • I can add a couple images. I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery down the right, but can put one in if necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think, IIRC, templates like {{dagger}} can take an "alt" parameter to explain them for accessibility.
  • Sure. Not really sure what this would say though. {{dagger|alt=footnote}} is the example given, but I don't think that's all that helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 2 lacks a date, either publication or access.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What is 888 sport?
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No archive for ""Hall of Fame". Snooker.org. Retrieved 3 June 2022."?
  • Ran the archive script Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes "global-snooker.com" an RS? (note it seems to be hyphenated as well).
  • I tend to think it's a very good resource, and I've done a deep dive on it before, but can't find my notes. It doesn't cover anything that isn't already covered, so I can remove it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this is an article under the "Snooker terminology" category.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page, but from that list, I think it's clear that this one isn't up to that standard. Specifically, some differences where I prefer what was done on the Triple Crown page are:

• I would think the point of this article is to see which players came close to winning the Triple Crown or to track how many finals each player has reached over time. However, it doesn't seem like it can be used for either of those purposes because it's just three separate lists (that also basically just repeat lists on other pages at a lower quality). I would recommend figuring out how to make it a single chronological list like you did with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page.
  • I think that with more information on the table, that would just get confusing. I'm much happier with info on the tournament winners. I think the assumptions here are a bit misplaced, as if you were following a single player (say Steve Davis), his Triple Crown finals are listed on his own page in such a way. this is just a full list of all such finals. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a reason for not using the flags?
  • Flag cruft pretty much. These are individual events, not national. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend having the counts of the finals: e.g. (1/1), (11/15), etc. the same way you have a count for the wins on the other page.
• I would recommend using color (and symbols) to indicate which players (a) made two finals, (b) made three finals, and (c) won the Triple Crown.

I see others have already pointed out issues with the lead being too short. Some things that are missing are:

• The article should distinguish that it's referring to the finals of the Triple Crown events, not the finals in which a Triple Crown was won. (As of now, it doesn't specify that the events that constitute the Triple Crown achievement are referred to as Triple Crown events.)
  • I've added a sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead could mention more about how many players have made all three finals in the same year, how many of them won all three, and highlight who if anyone won the first two events in a year but messed up their chance in the final of the third one.

It seems like most of the article could be affected, so oppose at the moment, but I have confidence you can figure it out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I know that you've been quite busy recently, but do you plan on continuing to work on this nomination? --PresN 02:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I hadn't forgotten at all, just had zero time. Will check this through ASAP! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777, do you think your opposition has been sufficiently addressed in the above replies?--NØ 02:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would write "Eleven" as a numeral (11) to keep in line with the "29" and "21" in the preceding sentence.
  • Issue is, we don't ever start a sentence with a number, which is the problem here. Ive reworded to make this possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• Where is the source for the Players to appear in multiple finals table?
  • I'd argue MOS:CALC seeings we've sourced all of the individual finals MaranoFan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy to support after these are addressed, Lee Vilenski. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate a review on my current FAC. Best wishes.--NØ 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to support. I suppose its the coords' responsibility to decide what do with the oppose that never came back.--NØ 11:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few improvements to this list article the other day, hope you don't mind. I would support this as a featured list apart from just one thing. I don't see how ref.6 verifies the statement: "The Triple Crown events are generally the most prestigious on the calendar, with the three winners in the 2021–22 snooker season earning more prize money than from any of the other events." Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, maybe not the "prestigious" part. if you click on the individual events, it'll show the prize money given. This was the only way to show the prize money in contrast to the other events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "is the achievement of winning three specific events:" I don't think "specific" is necessary since you are going to subsequently list the events so I think this can be removed.
  • I added the word "specific" here because otherwise it might appear, on first reading, that players just need to win any three events, rather than those three specific ones. I know the three are listed after the colon, but the addition of specific serves to make the statement crystal clear. Or could change it to "...winning these three events:" or "winning the following three events:"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like "winning the following three events:" but "winning these three events" would work, too, and would make the phrasing more clear in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the World Snooker Championship reverted to being played as a knockout tournament in 1969," -> "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969," I don't think the removed content is necessary
• "with all subsequent competition" Delete all as redundant
  • Disagree. "with all subsequent competition" shows that the modern era is all snooker tournaments that came after the 1969 world championship. Removing those words would leave: "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the "modern era" of snooker" – meaning that 1969 alone was considered the modern era, rather than the start of the modern era. Could change it to "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the start of the "modern era" of snooker"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave this to Lee Vilenski's discretion. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "when it became open to all professional overseas players as well as those from the UK." -> "when it became open to all professional players." I don't think overseas and UK need to be outlined, as I think it creates a "for indoor and outdoor use only" situation where there are no other options (if there is a category of professional player that falls outside of overseas and British categories, then keep this in)

Source review

Version reviewed

• ISBNs should either have dashes or not have dashes
• Ref 2: Why is no author listed?
  • Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 3: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • Published book from Eric Hayton, who used to write the European Football magazines. Seems like the highest quality to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • Chris Turner is the guy who used to do the statistics for the BBC and Eurosport, and is generally deemed the second most renowned snooker historian after Clive Everton before his death. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • It's an award winning statistical site, awarded by Britannia and the BBC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6/9: Should Snooker.org be capitalised?
  • I actually have no idea. I was under the impression website parameters, where the title is just the website name it was lowercase. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I checked MOS:TITLECAPS and websites are not explicitly mentioned. It does mention that titles of works should be capitalised, but then we would need to discuss if a website name like "snooker.org" is considered the "title of a work". My interpretation is that capitalising websites in a "snooker.org" or "healthcare.gov" format in references is the article writer's choice, as long as it is consistent. Right now, "snooker.org" is not capitalised in ref 6, but is capitalised in refs 9 bullet 3, 10 bullet 3, and 11 bullet 3. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a response above. Some of the bullet points above don't have a comment underneath them. Were they addressed/resolved? Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; while the source review was not formally closed I'm going to count it, and while there is an outstanding oppose it seems to be at odds with the opinions of the other reviewers for the bits that were not done. As such, promoting. --PresN 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I've checked it against the criteria and it seems to match all of them. It is similar to many existing featured lists of officeholders, such as List of prime ministers of India and List of premiers of Prince Edward Island. This was one of the first articles I edited and I have contributed to it a bit over the years, and am reasonably familiar with the source material. However, I would not count myself as a major contributor. Thus I will not take credit for its quality if promoted. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No citations for the list..? Wretchskull (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: The list is cited to references 2 and 3. This was not clear from the inlines, and I have now fixed it. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paragraph 1 is unsourced

• Added some sources.

• Articles really shouldn't include the wording "This list includes" so try and find a way to reword

• I've reworded the sentence in a nicer way that hopefully solves the problem.

• You've changed "this list includes" to "this article lists", which is essentially the same thing. Articles should not contain "meta" references like that (at least not within the prose). I would suggest binning off that sentence completely and starting that paragraph off which something like "The holder of the office originally had the title of colonial secretary; this was changed to premier in 1869" and so on -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay. I've reworded it in a way that doesn't mention the article itself. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead feels like it could do with a little more content. Could you add info on the longest-serving PM, the oldest, the youngest, etc?

• Added oldest-youngest info. I can't think of much else to add, however.

• Follow-up; I've added another paragraph. YttriumShrew (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you put refs 2 and 3 against the "sub-headings" within the table? They look a bit weird just floating at the bottom......

• Fixed.

• A couple of entries have a dagger symbol next to the date of leaving office but it is not explained anywhere what this means

• Fixed. (Indicates the PM died in office.)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done the above. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna screw this up (hopefully)

• "The prime minister is the head of government of New Zealand" — This wording implies, to me, that all prime ministers are heads of governments in NZ; perhaps "In New Zealand, the prime minister is the head of government"

• Okay. I've changed the wording, hopefully this fixes the problem.

• "The prime minister is always a member of Parliament." — is unsourced?

• It was originally sourced to reference 1, but the references got moved around. Fixed.

• "should properly be given that title" — ...why?

• They are not considered prime ministers because New Zealand did not yet have responsible government. Have added clarification and sources.

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Hopefully fixed the above problems. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" | Government becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" | Government. If the cell spans multiple columns, 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. ! style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2 becomes !scope=row style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Finally, the table-spanning "interrupter" rows are contraindicated. What happens with screen reader software is that it treats it like it's the value for all the columns- so it reads out e.g. "No., Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Portrait, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Name, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869);", etc. Instead, since this isn't a sortable table, just split it into multiple tables and have the "interrupter" row text be the caption of that 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 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth noting I did this two months ago and forgot to notify here. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1935, every prime minister has been a member of the National and Labour parties, reflecting their domination of New Zealand politics." Could imply membership in both parties (obviously not possible, but...); use "either" "or".
  • Fixed.
• Number of male/female prime ministers. With three women PMs, only three other countries have had an equal number of heads of government (Poland, Lithuania, Iceland), and only two have had more (Finland, 4; Switzerland, 5). Women's Power Index, Council on Foreign Relations.
  • Added.
• Counting system a little unclear - a symbol indicating subsequent term of office might be better than bracketed numbering.
  • I personally think it's alright; it's used on many other lists of officeholders, including some featured ones. I have added an explanatory note.
• "Nine prime ministers have held the position for more than one discrete term in office." one parliamentary term?
  • No, it means for one period. Fixed.
• Both image captions - unclear why absent PMs are mentioned, recommend dropping. Add "from left" to second image.
  • Fixed

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Someone finally commented! I believe concerns have been addressed. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YttriumShrew Made a few copy-edits. Support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I know there is a reference that lists all the Prime Ministers from 1856 in the reference section (which actually states in the list since 1865, so that needs to be fixed), but it's not clear what is currently referencing the tables. This reference should be put alongside the captions on all of the tables so it's clear to the reader what source is providing the information in the tables. Right now, it's not clear and I had to fish through the sources to find said source.
• "Since 1935, every prime minister has been a member of either the National party or the Labour party, reflecting their domination of New Zealand politics." This could do with a source
• "The title of the office was originally "colonial secretary", which was formally changed to "premier" in 1869, and then to "prime minister" in 1907 when New Zealand was granted Dominion status in the British Empire." This sentence is also unsourced.

NapHit (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The two references linked at the top of the Name column provide the information for all the entries. I'm not sure repeating those two references 40+ times is necessary. Perhaps an alternative is a single row across the bottom of all the tables with the text "Source: New Zealand Parliament, New Zealand Government" and a footnote for each. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just looked at this more closely, the NZ History page from the NZ Government actually has individual webpages for each person, with an author credit. I change my view, there should be a separate column indicating each individual reference. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I made it clear what I was suggesting. Just a simple link next to the caption at the top of te tables would suffice. That ref lists all the Prime Ministers so we can just use that for all the tables at the top next to the caption rather than separate refs. NapHit (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @NapHit: So sorry that took so long. All should be done now. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem @YttriumShrew:. All my concerns have been addressed now so I'm happy to support. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @NapHit@YttriumShrew@Giants2008@ChrisTheDude. If I take the example of Richard Seddon in the list - the two links at the top do not indicate his constituency, his date of birth, his date of death, his five election victories. One needs to go to a subsequent page to find that information. From my point of view, this fails "statements are sourced where they appear" (3b), which requires "direct support" ("A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source") (emphasis in original). Perhaps others will interpret this differently, I don't mean to be pedantic, but the links as they presently stand do not appear to lead one directly to the information that appears. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the political party column, it would seem to me that "—" would be more appropriate than linking to independent politician as this is a period prior to the establishment of political parties, unless there are specific sources listing that person as an independent politician. The New Zealand Parliament page leaves the party column blank for those before John Ballance. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Fixed. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the citations are well-formatted and reliable, and the link-checker tool didn't pick up any dead links. I concur with NapHit in that only the Name column looks to be cited with the current formatting, which isn't really enough to meet FL sourcing criteria. If you don't want to repeat the cite in all columns, their suggestion looks to be the best option. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Yes. I have now done this. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting; the issue raised about the general ref not giving all of the information at the landing page and requiring a clickthrough is taken, but as the links are obvious I see it as equivalent to a book cite with a page range or chapter title, and so not egregious enough to prevent promotion. --PresN 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 22 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, and Scandentia), with the last one in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 20 species of Macroscelidea, or elephant shrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent; the elephant part just comes from the nose looking kind of like a trunk, but it turns out they're actually in the same Afrotheria clade of six orders with elephants. These little mammals are native to a variety of habitats in Africa, generally the southern half, and all look fairly similar, though do note the black and rufous elephant shrew, which eschews the dusty camouflage of most of them for a striking black and red. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. This will be last one of these lists for a while—I took a break after this one to change genres. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Etendeka round-eared sengi, at 8 cm (3 in) plus a 8 cm (3 in) tail, to the grey-faced sengi, at 32 cm (13 in) plus a 26 cm (10 in) tail" - I think I mentioned this in a previous FLC, but is there a way to reword this? I appreciate that all these creatures are kinda of a similar size when compared to the entirety of the animal kingdom (i.e. they are small), but is it really accurate to say that they are of a similar size and then list two examples where one has a body literally four times the size of the other? Does that make sense?
• Wikilink biome as a slightly obscure word?
• Is it worth wikilinking savanna on the first usage? It may not be a term that all readers know.....
• Think that's all I got - great work as ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 02:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• An excellent list.
• "Almost no macroscelid species have a population estimate, though the golden-rumped elephant shrew is considered endangered with a population of around 13,000.": I prefer something like: "The only macroscelid species with an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) population estimate is the golden-rumped elephant shrew, listed as endangered with a population of around 13,000." (And then of course you can use just "IUCN" in the Conventions section ... see my next bullet point.)
• "Conservation status codes listed follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. ... Ranges are based on the IUCN Red List for that species unless otherwise noted.": I prefer: "Unless otherwise noted, ranges and conservation status codes listed follow the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." I have no preference on whether you keep the "otherwise noted" or where it should go.
• Alt text seems to be missing for the dusky-footed and Karoo rock elephant shrews.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Text points done; not sure what you mean about the alt text as neither of those two has a species image (and all the ranges have visible text instead). --PresN 18:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops on the alt text. I get that "unless otherwise noted" complicates the question regarding the two "Red List" sentences, and I don't have any strong preference. Everything else looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• No concerns with the lede.
• Why isn't there a citation for the classification section?

• Added

• I'm not sure if "Main article: Macroscelididae", as it this is the first wikilink in the first word of the article in the lede.

• Yeah, since there's only one family it looks weird, removed

Images

• "Elephantulus fuscus Peters 1852.jpg", "Elephantulus brachyrhynchus Smith 1839.jpg", "Elephantulus rupestris Smith 1839.tif", "Rhynchocyon chrysopygus-J Smit 2.jpg" all need a US public domain tag

• Added

• "Elephantulus fuscus Peters 1852.jpg" I could not find the image in the book that is listed as its source. Where did this image come from?

• The image as stated comes from one of the plates that came with the book (plate 19, in this case), rather than being printed in the book. They did that back in the 1850s. I do not know why the plates aren't included in the scan at the Munchener DigitalisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek linked; presumably they're in a different record. The book scan listed does refer to plate 19 for this species, however.

• After searching a couple of different places, I finally found the image on Google books, and replaced the source link because the image was not in the original link. The Google books image is in colour, but I'm fine with keeping this black-and-white image if desired. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Sources are high quality.
• No formatting concerns.

Please ping me when the concerns above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: responded inline, thanks! --PresN 15:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Added comment above about E. fuscus image. All other concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 20 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 1 for Perissodactyla, and 1 for Cingulata), with another in a series of single-list orders. We continue from the other open FLC for the order Cingulata (armadillos) to here with the 129 species of Didelphimorphia, aka opossums. These animals come in a fairly wide variety of shapes and sizes, though they're all long-tailed marsupials who mostly eat fruit and insects. This order has a lot of similarities to Cingulata, in that it has a single species—the Virginia opossum—up in North America (where I'm from), but a ton down in Mexico and South America. Also like that order, there's been a bunch of research in the past couple of decades, resulting in species being split into multiples and new subfamilies created where opossums that looked similar turned out to be very different on a genetic level, but this list is up to date on the latest research. As always, this list should reflect comments from prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Is the diet of the Peruvian opossum unknown? If so, it might be worth specifically writing that so it doesn't just look like it's been missed
• Under the Junin slender opossum, you have "Size: 9–11 cm (4–4 in) long", which looks a bit odd. I presume this is due to a template, but is there any way to get round it?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Fixed both, as well as a few others that had 4-4 in. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow I had no idea there were so many opossums, lots of cute ones! Same quality as your others and I couldn't find any issues. Support Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

• Should the "Classification" section have citations? It's not part of the lede, so is this information verified elsewhere in the article?
• No prose concerns in the lede
• Image check:
  • DidelphysWaterhousiiWolf.jpg, Monodelphis dimidiata.jpg need a US public domain tag
  • ALT tex is included in all images
• Source check: Version reviewed
  • Pass, no concerns.
  • Spot checked: ref 3, 37, 134 (passed)
  • I'm not sure what ref 1 is verifying? Can someone direct me to where it verifies "Over one hundred extinct Didelphimorph species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed."?

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Citations added to "Classification", image tags updated. Ref 1: Unfortunately, there is generally no good single-page reference for prehistoric species in a given order, so instead we rely on citing a multi-page database. In this case, you can verify that there are 100+ species underneath Didelphimorphia by counting the species listed in the "subtaxa" links (and their subtaxa links, and so on). Unfortunately, the "View classification" link just gives you "A full classification of the subtaxa is too large to display here", so we're left with a more obnoxious method. --PresN 16:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's extremely annoying about ref 1, but it is what it is. Image copyright banners are added, Classification section now has citations. All of my concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the sources appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the Latin pop #1's of 1997 done, here is the tropical #1's of the same year. This year was really good for tropical music, with this list having some of my favorite tunes! Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was succeed by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh" where it remained on top of the charts for four weeks" => "It was succeeded by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh", which remained on top of the chart for four weeks"
• "Starr had previously established herself freestyle artist" => "Starr had previously established herself as a freestyle artist"
• "returned to music scene" => "returned to the music scene"
• "She is the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997" => "She was the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997"
• Grupo Mania photo caption seems to have too many quote marks after the song title
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As always, thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Erick (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor: when using rowscopes (scope=row), if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. --PresN 19:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Sorry for the late response, it's been fixed! Erick (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• "Negrón spent a total of 12 weeks at number one" -> "Negrón spent 12 weeks at number one" I think this will tighten up the language.
• ""Inolvidable" was named the best-performing track of the year" Who named it this?

Image check

• "File:FrankieNegronAirgo.jpg" The source of the image is not linked. The banner to this image asks to check with the source to verify this, but I am unable to do so. I suggest swapping this image or removing it.

Source check

• Ref 1: Billboard should be wikilinked

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Done and done. Fun fact: That image I replaced Negrón is the one I personally took way back in 2011. Erick (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: I'm getting a red link on the Negron image. Was the correct file name used? Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Works fine on my end. Perhaps it needed to cache for the day since I cropped the image yesterday? Erick (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image works for me now, but it is quite long on my screen. Is there a way to crop the bottom of the image so that it is more square and focused on his face? Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 So I've cropped it further as suggested, but the changes don't show up yet. In the meantime, I'm using 150px. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I haven't responded. The article looks good so I can support. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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) 21:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's my 11th nomination of a list of number ones on the precursor of the Billboard R&B/hip-hop chart. This one goes out to my dad, who absolutely loves the music of Fats Domino, who had his first chart-topper in this year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on another well-written series! My only comment is how "5–10–15 Hours" is sorted as "Five Ten Five" instead of being sorted in numeric order? --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not required for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive all your web citations to avoid future annoyance with link rot and death. This suggestion was brought on after I saw Citations 6, 7, and 10 are not archived.
• I know this is a pain, but for the Billboard citations through Google Books, I would include the ISSNs so the citation has all the information.
• All the citations are reliable and high-quality for a featured list. They are all from publications that I would expect to see in this kind of list.
• I have done a few spot checks, and from what I have seen at least, all of the information in the article is accurate and supported by the citations.

Solid job as always. This will pass my source review once the Billboard citations are complete. The citation archiving is more of a suggestion than anything. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: - added the ISSN. Can you remind me of the bot/script/thingy that I can run to archive the citations? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your response. Here is the link to the IABot. Since archiving is not a required part of the FLC process. This passes my source review. If possible, I'd appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• There may or may not be a copyright issue with the B.B. King image, judging by the uploader's talk page on Commons; also, this doesn't look to me like a photo taken by a fan. Regarding the Dominoes image, is there any indication that Maurice Seymour Studio has waived their rights?
• A table caption is required, with or without an sronly template, so I added one.
• 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 table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The images seem fine apart from the points already mentioned.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: many thanks for adding the caption, I can't believe I am still forgetting that. I have replaced the two images you queried -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns about the prose in the lede.
• Image check pass: licencing is good, upright is used, ALT text used, captions good.
• Source check pass: all high quality, formatting is good.
• Note a is placed next to August 2, which says that two songs tied that particular week, but I think only Lawdy is listed for that particular week. Is "Have Mercy Baby" also supposed to be listed for that week? If so, the chart needs to be fixed. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - Many thanks for your review, I fixed August 2. Still not 100% sure what the issue was (even after all these years I still have the occasional issue with table syntax) but I found a workaround..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no more concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable Me 2 is one of the best films of 2013 that received the most accolades that any Despicable Me film did. Here's a list of its accolades, as always I am open to constructive criticism on how to improve it. Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I couldn't find anything. great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox doesn't seem to match the table. The infobox lists 11 wins/54 noms but the total says 8 wins/51 noms, and the table itself includes 8 wins/52 noms.
• who is used three times in two sentences in the lead – suggest rewriting to remove at least one occurrence
• It garnered – the film or the soundtrack?
• Move note 1 to the recipients column

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123  Done except for the fourth point: Notes are distinct from References. Chompy Ace 05:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 last amend made. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns with the lede
• Lots of wikilinks in the chart which are not needed. While not necessary for a support, consider MOS:REPEATLINK and if every instance of "Despicable Me" should be wikilinked.
• Image check - pass
• Source check: Version reviewed
• Ref 11: Suggest archiving
• No other concerns with formatting or quality of sources.

Support: no major concerns, everything listed above is optional for my support but I hope will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on more recent Emmy ceremonies, but I saw the sad state this list was in and decided to completely redo it. Fun fact: This ceremony saw the first "broadband" nominee. To quote one article, "Twenty years from now, when Emmy [sic] only recognizes programming found on the Internet, historians will point to the mostly forgotten Drive as the show that started it all." Seems pretty accurate to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee received five wins from 11 nominations, leading all programs in both categories" - what are "both" categories? The last mention of categories said there were 66? Do you mean across the two ceremonies?
• If the presenters are in alpha order, Miley Cyrus should be after her dad
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of TV series and movies should be italicized even in citations.
• Per MOS:QWQ, quotations within quotations (namely quotations inside the article title) should be formated with half quotation)

Bob said: "My favorite episode of Cheers is 'Thanksgiving Orphans' which aired in 1986."

Otherwise this is good.

--Birdienest81talk 09:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Good work.

-- Birdienest81talk 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. No problem with the prose. 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). 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) 20:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns with prose in the lede

Image check

• Licencing is good.
• Instead of px, use upright per MOS:IMAGESIZE

Source check

Version reviewed, spotcheck not done

• No concerns with quality or formatting.

Please ping when the image concern is addressed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Issues have been fixed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) and Chompy Ace (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After recently taking Oscar Isaac's biography to FA, here's his work and awards list in collaboration with Chompy Ace, who created the list and sourced the table. Have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Titles starting with The should sort based on the next word of the title
• Roles should sort under last name (e.g. Abel Morales under M)
• Abbreviation should be consistent Ref(s) = Reference(s)
• I would put the "legend/key" box after table of contents.
• Isaac won his first major role in the biblical drama -- tweak to avoid confusion, since this is his first major role, and he did not actually win (an award/recognition) for the film.
• Beginning the 2010s -- In 2010 would be simple and direct, since he only did one film.
• Isaac followed by playing -- Isaac followed this by playing
• That's all for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Pseud. All changes incorporated here. FrB.TG (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time and interest FrB.TG, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current BLP peer review.

• "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099 Cameo; voice role; character credited as "Interesting Person #1"" - so which is it? We've got a specific role named in the second column but then a different credit in the third.......?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, Chris. I've clarified it now. FrB.TG (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "parts in Joseph Adler's 2000 productions" it's not 100% obvious that these are stage performances.
• "the biblical drama " also then no way of knowing this is a film.
• "next few years" doesn't feel very encylopedic.
• Second para uses Isaac a lot when the subject is unambiguous, could use "he" every so often.
• "to play Hamlet in a major" our article on the character is at Prince Hamlet.
• "included playing roles" no need for "playing".
• Where is, for example, his role as "executive producer" of Lightningface? Producer in Operation Finale? Etc.

You mean in the lead? It already mentions his role as a producer in OF. I've also added his role as an exec. producer in Moon Knight now.

• Title says this includes his "awards" but it also includes all his nominations. Is it the right title?
• Note d, seems odd, he was nominated alongside them, he didn't share the nomination did he i.e. if one of them won, all three of them wouldn't have won together, right?

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Rambling Man, for your comments. These are the changes I made in regard to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: do you think you could finish your review one of these days? Thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a comprehensive list that meets the FLC criteria, and I think it looks similar to other anime-related FLCs. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I won't screw this up

• "is a 22 episode" → is a 22-episode
• Optional but I think "animated television series" would flow better than "television animation series"
• "novel of the same name, Hyouka" → novel of the same name (naming the novel is unneeded as the reader already knows it has the same name)
• Does "series composition" mean writing? The way it's worded... I thought the job was like a producer or something
• "around the events Houtarou Oreki" — I had to read this a few times before I understood... because I thought the character was an event... maybe that's just an issue for me...
• "released on August and" → released in August and
• "North America on July and" → North America in July and
• Link Crunchyroll at its first mention
• Is the theme music relevant enough for the lead? It seems like mere trivia and fancruft to me
• Make sure all citations conform with MOS:CITEPUNCT
• The theme music singers need a source
• "Two volumes of Hyouka's drama CDs were released." — kinda awkward and clunky
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Hyouka need to be italicised in citations

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Thanks for you comments! I think I got everything that you pointed out... but as for the music I think it should be fine to keep it there as it seems other anime FL articles seems to point it out like List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes and List of Yuri on Ice episodes. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Sorry, I just realized I had to italicize the citations! I've italicized them. Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks :) Takipoint123 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. I hope it becomes FL so I'll just mention the few issues:

• Give an alt to the image.
  • Done
• Add trans-title to the Japanese references.
  • Done
• There is no obligatory rule but dates format in references should be consistent.
  • Done
• Wikilink anime in the first sentence.
  • Done
• Who published the DVDs in Japan?
  • Added BD BOX citation that shows that it was released by Kadokawa Shoten, if that is sufficient(?)
  • Also added the label for the Drama CDs
• The second paragraph is kinda big. I would suggest splitting the Japanese content from the English ones.
  • Done
• Is it necessary to add eyecathes? Might come across as trivia or fancruft based on MOS
  • Removed
• Are macrons used by the publishers? Cos it's kinda inconsistent.
  • I've changed them all to Hyouka unless they were the titles of the article in citations.
• Is it possible to have a brief premise about the the drama cd narrative? See this FL as example.
  • Unfortunately I don't think I have any reliable sources nor access to the actual Drama CDs, so I'm not too sure if I can add a premise.

Remember to ping me once you fix it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Thanks for the suggestions, and I've made corrections made above--Takipoint123 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a break, I am back with a new list (will work on the prior failed nom, due to my absence, at a later date and I apologize for not being able to action that more timely). This is the list of commanding officers for the British 1st Armoured Division, which was formed in 1937 and lasted until 1945. It was briefly revived between 1946 and 1947 (a 1st Armoured Division was formed in the 1970s and lasted until the 2000s, but as that was created by the renaming of the 1st Division, its commanding officers are included on a separate list dedicated to the 1st Division). This particular division fought in the Second World War, seeing action in France, North Africa, and Italy with two of its commanding officers becoming wounded in the line of duty. Look forward to all feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "who would receive orders" => "who receives orders" (as the sentence is talking generally about the concept of a GOC - alternatively change the whole thing to past tense but make it refer to this specific division i.e. "The division was commanded by a general officer commanding (GOC), who received orders"
• "and then use the forces" => "and then uses the forces" (or "used" if you follow the second suggestion above)

  I have opted for the latter choice, and have tried to reword accordingly for both these points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was during this period that it was temporarily renamed the 1st British Armoured Division2 - you haven't mentioned its (apparent) earlier renaming, so probably worth adding that in

  Added inEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "ceased to be an operation formation" - should that say "operational".....?

  Yes, and correctedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "During Evan's tenure" - apostrophe in wrong place

  Moved to where it should beEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the division mobilized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " Lumsden was wounded in action on 19 July 1942" - complete sentence so needs a full stop. Same with the one on the line below

  Period added to this sentence, and also the one below (which I have just added some extra content to).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 5 April 1943, the division was redesignated as the 1st British Armoured Division" - needs a full stop

  Period added

• Is it really necessary to put "acting commander" in the notes column when you have "acting" in the first column?

  I was just thinking the same when I was relooking over the article, and now removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to action them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Playfair et all (2004b) is not used and should be removed.
• Support

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review, comment, and support. I have removed the excess book.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. For some reason, for the "primary" cell of each column, you have an empty scope instead of a rowscope; e.g. !scope=align="center" should be !scope=row align="center". --PresN 19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated per the above, although it ignored the code to center the text. I entered a semi-colon between the two and that has factored in the center aligned text again. Not sure if that impacts the accessibility part. Are you able to take a look and establish if the change has worked?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns about the lede.
• Image check: pass
• Source check: Version reviewed. One concern: Why does Ref 1 say "The Divisional System" instead of a page number?

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above is answered. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@Z1720: Thank you for the review and the above comments. This particular work I was unable to obtain a physical or e-copy so had to rely on Google Books and a version that did not include the page numbers. As a result, I was forced to cite the chapter instead.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. For ref 1, I tried to find another copy of the book with page numbers but was unsuccessful. It'll just have to be left as it is. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1980 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing at all. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "23 categories" – I count 22? (Unless the Special Achievement Award counts, I can't remember)
• Duration in infobox needs better source if possible (source 25 is okay but not great)
• Any reason ratings are omitted from infobox when other years include them?
• "posthumous nomination" – citation needed
• "E=MC2 mon amour" should be written as "E=mc² mon amour", based on this French Wikipedia article and other sources
• "Its So Nice..." → "It's So Nice..."
• I think the ceremony was nominated for some Emmys per this, but I'll search for more sources to confirm.
  • Update: This Hollywood Reporter article confirms it, I can add the information later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: - Done: I have read your comments and have responded to them by making the proper adjustments based on them. Thank you.

--Birdienest81talk 09:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prose concerns

Source review

Version reviewed

• Ref 29: If this is a single page, it should be "p", not "pp"

Image review

• No licencing concerns
• No caption concerns
• No formatting concerns

Please ping when the source review comment is addressed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Done: Fixed the page number by change the field from plural to singular.

--Birdienest81talk 09:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to mention who won the Big Five in the lead as that is what most people looking at this article will look for
• Also a summary of the critical reception that the ceremony received would be useful in the lead and the ratings/viewership compared to the previous year.
• The Johnny Carson pic alttext probably needs more description like "A black and white photograph of Johnny Carson in 1970" Cowlibob (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cowlibob: Done -- Thanks for the comments.

--Birdienest81talk 10:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third FLC and second Melon Music Award FLC after Melon Music Award for Album of the Year was recently passed. This category is the next one in the series I would like to do, I think this list presents winners and nominees in a comprehensive matter with reliable sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "to base its awards to artists" => "to present awards to artists"
• "the criteria for accolade" => "the criteria for the accolade"
• "Wonder Girls received the Best Song award in 2007–08" - this is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• Same with "Twice won the award for "Cheer Up" in 2016"
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the instant comments! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Quality song containing both lyrics and melody" – this part of the infobox feels superfluous, and it's unsourced. Either cite it (in the infobox or in the lead) or remove it altogether.
• "becoming one its grand prizes" → "becoming one of its grand prizes"
• Add timestamps to all cited videos
• Wonder Girls should be linked in caption like the other groups
• Don't hide nominees for 2009 (I'm not an expert, but I don't think that hiding table content is good for accessibility)
• The green navboxes at the bottom of the page fail accessibility requirements (see MOS:COLOR). Please pick a new color scheme and verify that it works using this website or a similar tool.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think having "See 2009 Melon Music Awards#Winners and nominees" in the nominees column for 2009 is sufficient? Because I feel that with the way it is now, 2009 alone takes up a lot of room in the table. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally fine with it as is. If you want to link to another page, I would suggest using an anchor in case the section title changes; see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS. Either way, happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "while BTS and 2NE1 follow with the second most nominations with five each." -> "while BTS and 2NE1 have the second most nominations with five each." To tighten up the language
• Why are the nominees not given for 2009? If there was no shortlist given, should it be assumed that there was not shortlist and therefore all of them were nominated?
• Image review: pass (no concerns)
• Source review: Version reviewed
  • Ref 3: Is Naver referring to Naver, and should it be wikilinked?
  • Ref 14, 20, 22: YouTube should be wikilinked
  • Ref 23: Should wikilink to SBS PopAsia
  • Ref 27: Billboard should wikilink to Billboard (magazine)
  • Ref 31: This should note when the event takes place (ie the award is given)

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 All done. Nominees are not shown for 2009 as I think it takes an unnecessary large portion of the table if all of them are listed. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Manga Taishō is one of several annually-awarded manga industry prizes recognizing critical achievement in manga. It is somewhat unique in its field in that is judged by a committee of "manga enthusiasts" – mostly bookstore employees – rather than the editors of a given publishing company. I have recently reorganized the list of nominees and winners into a sortable table and significantly expanded the lede, and believe it now meets FLC requirements. I welcome any comments that would improve the list further. Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A Bride's Story should sort under B not A
• I think that's all I've got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Hi, thanks for your comment. I believe the three instances of A Bride's Story in the primary table are already using Template:Sort to alphabetize under B rather than A. Is there another instance I'm missing? Morgan695 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Morgan695: - sorry, that seems to be a massive brain-fart on my part - it's actually "A Silent Voice" that erroneously sorts under A at the moment....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this a look-over, it definitely shows great improvement from what it used to be. As for comments:

• The links for Yugo Kobayashi and Naoya Matsumoto link to individuals that are in no way connected to the manga
  • Fixed.
• Makoto Kobayashi links to a dab page
  • Fixed.
• Chica Umino/Chika Umino is inconsistently romanized on the page
  • Fixed.
• Add a comma after March 28, 2008 in the lead per WP:DATECOMMA
  • Added.

That is all. Link20XX (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: Hi, comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after giving the article an even more thorough review, I found a couple more issues:

• Mashiro no Oto has an English title, Those Snow White Notes, which is also the title of the main article, so it should be changed to that
  • Fixed.
• Kokkoku should have a piped link with its subtitle Moment by Moment since that seems to be how this article treats series titles with subtitles
  • Added.
• Why does the entry on Sanzoku Diary have a stray comma after it? Is this comma part of the title?
  • Removed.
• Watashi no Shōnen has an English article at My Boy (manga), so this does not need to link to the Japanese article
  • Fixed.