Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2021

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With 1942's list having received three supports so far, here is the next in the series....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – As with the 1942 list, the book references with year ranges in the titles (numbers 2, 4, and 11) need end dashes, and the ISBNs for refs 2 and 4 match and need to be checked. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – My small issues have been resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Jazz musician Duke Ellington.JPEG — I can't access the source link
• File:Ink Spots Billboard 3.jpg — The commons licencing states that this image was published "in the United States between 1926 and 1977 and without a copyright notice specific to the advertisement." But the Google books version of the Billboards magazine has a watermark stating "Copyrighted material" on the bottom right corner of the print. Although I am not sure, but why is this specifically believed to be in the public domain?
• File:Lucky Millinder Billboard.jpg — same as above.
• File:Harry James Billboard 4.jpg — same as above.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Re: the images from Billboard ads, I am no expert, but I found this additional info on another image that uses the same tag (File:Erskine_Hawkins.jpg):

US Copyright Office page 3-magazines are collective works (PDF)

"A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement."

United States Copyright Office page 2 "Visually Perceptible Copies The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all three elements described below. They should appear together or in close proximity on the copies.

1 The symbol © (letter C in a circle); the word “Copyright”; or the abbreviation “Copr.”

2 The year of first publication. If the work is a derivative work or a compilation incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the derivative work or compilation is sufficient. Examples of derivative works are translations or dramatizations; an example of a compilation is an anthology. The year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles.

3 The name of the copyright owner, an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of owner.1 Example © 2007 Jane Doe.")

So that would seem to imply that unless there is a contemporary copyright notice specifically on the ad itself, it isn't copyrighted......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. There seems to be no copyright symbol "©" on the advertisements. Willing to accept that they were published without notice. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I have replaced the Duke Ellington image with the above-mentioned Erskine Hawkins one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• When the Lights Go On Again and See See Rider Blues are redirects.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose and the table coding are fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

• "were in the jazz and swing genres" – This is used in other R&B lists also, but maybe a mention of Louis Jordan and jump blues may be appropriate. His first chart topper appeared in 1943 and he would soon dominate the charts for the rest of the forties (Whitburn lists him as the No. 1 artist of the forties at 6,522 points, far ahead of the second place Nat King Cole at 2,833). Jump blues, of course, became a popular genre and an important influence on rock and roll.
• The musicians' strike is mentioned, but if none recorded after July 1942, it would seem that more records would be affected. If there's a source, maybe a mention that they were taken from a stockpile recorded before the strike or a way around it was found.

The rest looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: - added a chunk about Jordan. Unfortunately I can't find a good source to clarify if these specific songs came from stockpiled recordings or came to be released in some other way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, informative and to the point, but I was unable to follow through on the footnote/source "[a]". Since it's just a small fix, so I'll go ahead and add my support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – It appears that refs 6 and 7 have been added since I first reviewed the article. Those could use en dashes for the year ranges in the titles as well. Other than that, the reliability and formatting both look okay and there are no dead links according to the tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 19:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013, A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III became the first film distributed by A24. The first film they produced, Moonlight, won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I rewrote the Wikipedia List of A24 films to add every film they distributed and/or produced. One reference says when they acquired the rights to the film, another says when it was released. I went with a style similar to the one found in List of Dharma Productions films, which also features a brief summary of every film once it is released. I have expanded the list to FL standards and I hope it can become an FL. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• The note "also produced by" looks weird on its own, like there are words missing at the end i.e. also produced by whom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "The company also made a multi-year agreement that November with Amazon Prime where" - I would say "whereby" personally
• The synopsis column looks a bit odd to me being centre-aligned. I think left alignment would work better, personally
• Wikilink Kalgoorlie? Not a very well-known place IMO
• "a young woman and her 5-year-old son Jack" - seems a bit odd to name the son but not the woman.......
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:  Done I didn't shift the plot column due to the table's formatting. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned by this list, namely that it's a list of films by a distributor, rather than a production company- I'm not as familiar with the film world as other forms of media, but is that really such a notable quality that it needs a list rather than a category? Do we have other examples of "films by distributor" lists, as opposed to "films by producer"? This leads to the second concern, that pre-pandemic A24 was pushing 20 films a year. With 2-3 lines per film, within a few years this list is going to be very, very long, even if A24 doesn't start distributing more films per year. Maybe that's okay, but it's a concern. --PresN 21:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: A24 is a production company. They also release films (see Category:Lists of films by studio). However, if you want the list to look shorter, we can remove the "Synopsis" column which is by itself already uncommon. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it's also a production company, but it's only produced 17 dated films and 9 undated, out of about 110 and 17, so less than a quarter of the list is about its produced films. If being a distributor is considered a major-enough part of film production that they should get lists on par with "regular" production companies then that's fine; I was just surprised to see it as for books or video games a "distributor" is just a non-notable middleman that doesn't even get a category. --PresN 16:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna screw this up hopefully

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations
• TBA should sort after 2022 in #Undated films

Pamzeis (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for the FA of Bad Times at the El Royale! This looks like a good FL, just a few lead comments. After that I'll support. GeraldWL 12:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait, didn't check the article to see this change has been done. Anyways that makes a support. GeraldWL 12:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image reviews –

• All of the references are well-formatted.
• What makes The Tracking Board (ref 191) a reliable source? I haven't heard of this site and it hasn't appeared in any candidates that I've looked at, so I feel like it's worth asking. Other that that site, the sources appear reliable throughout.
• Ref 12 (from The Numbers) is showing up on the link-checker tool as a possible dead link. Please double-check that the site is working.
• The lone image was extracted from a Flickr photo that had an appropriate license, and is appropriately licensed itself, so no issues there. On an optional note, you might consider adding alternate text to the image for improved accessibility. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Ref 12 works for me and is not a dead link. The Tracking Board article is reliable because it is an "exclusive" report, and was the first to mention the development of 2019's Share [4]. The Tracking Board is also used in this featured article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those answers are satisfactory to me. I'd say the source review has been passed, along with the image review. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 19:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): DTM (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A list of people who have "increased the quantity, quality, and availability of, or access to food". I've tried to add basic list and FLC features such as the sortname templates, the unsortable parameter, column scopes, and row scopes. Except for three laureates, I have used two references - one from the worldfoodprize.org website and the second from a reference other than the World Food Prize website. This is mainly to address any primary source issues. DTM (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing as the FLC in question has been archived by TRM. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review to follow, but I first wanted to know your reasoning as to why was this separate list created when a similar list existed in the main "World Food Prize" article? The FL criteria states "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In my opinion, the main World Food Prize article itself could have nominated for FL without a separate list being created (Example: United States Secretary of Transportation, a FL). Moreover, the prose section of the list is just 760 characters, less for an FL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Kavyansh Singh; there is no reason to have separate pages for the prize itself and the list of winners. As it stands this list is sorely lacking in prose context and the lead is far too short to receive my support. Please recombine them and renominate if that material is ready. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with the above comments. My suggestion would be to return the list to World Food Prize and bring that page up to FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kavyansh.Singh, Reywas92, RunningTiger123; I have combined the list and now there is just one page. DTM (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on my past experiences, FACBot gets confused if you move a page during an open nomination (@FLC director and delegates: can any of you confirm?). I would suggest closing this nomination and opening a new one at World Food Prize to prevent those kinds of issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It does get confused if the article talk page template doesn't directly point to the nomination (redirects are no good), but it's fine, I'll sort it out, we don't expect nominators to have to deal with bot issues themselves. --PresN 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorted; I'm pretty sure updating the talk page template is all it takes, but I went ahead and just moved the nomination page to the new title and updated the pointers instead. --PresN 14:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thank you. DTM (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with my review:

• The amount they agreed to was equivalent to the value of the Nobel Prizes at the time. — but how much was the amount?
• In 2000, Kenneth M. Quinn was made the President. — Per MOS:JOBTITLE, 'President' shouldn't be capitalized.
• Borlaug, Ruan and Quinn → "Borlaug, Ruan, and Quinn" (per oxford comma)
• from Iowa — suggesting to specify "from the US state of Iowa", as well as link Iowa
• Barbara Stinson would succeed → "Barbara Stinson later succeeded"
• Other sponsors over time have included over 100 charitable foundations, corporations and individuals, who have helped sustain the prize and the Foundation's associated events.^[15][5] — Ref#5 should be before Ref#15
• Youth Institute — why is it capitalized?

• I capitalized it according to the reference used. I have now shifted this down and expanded it. The new reference also capitalizes it. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• first Chairman — MOS:JOBTITLE
• Currently Gebisa Ejeta, — I think there should be a comma after 'Currently'
• is the chair — chairperson? chairman?
• Few MOS issues here. I think we should comply with WP:COMMONNAME.
  • Michael G. Gartner — our Wikipedia article calls him just Michael Gartner
  • Gregory Geoffroy — our Wikipedia article calls him Gregory L. Geoffroy
  • Corazon C. Aquino — our Wikipedia article calls her just Corazon Aquino
  • Robert S. McNamara — our Wikipedia article calls him just Robert McNamara
  • Jonathan F. Taylor — our Wikipedia article calls him just Jonathan Taylor

• I had changed this as per your comment above. However, comments below suggest I remove the prominence given to advisors. So I've done away with mention of the advisors. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Laureates are honored and officially awarded their prize in Des Moines, Iowa, — Iowa should be linked on its prior instance
• Is there a reason why we are copying the names given by "worldfoodprize.org", when our manual of style advises us to use the most common name by which reliable sources refer to a person. In the table, I think we should use the name which the title of our Wikipedia article uses, unless there is a good reason not to do so. For example, "Robert Dole" should be "Bob Dole".

• I have made the changes to the names. The reason I had used names as used by the awarding foundation was because of the note at List of Nobel laureates in Physics. However, now that I go through other lists, including the other Nobel lists, this is not the standard. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the people in the table which do not have Wikipedia articles notable enough to red-link?
• increased rice production — linking rice seems over-linking to me.

"That's all I have on a quick pass." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. I have left explanations for some comments. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this list for its promotion as a featured list. Nice work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the procedural issues worked out, here's my full review.

• Images need alt text
• "Awarded for" portion of the infobox is detailed and seems like a quote from somewhere; if it is a quote, add a citation, and if it isn't, don't add so many details
• "by John Ruan, businessman and philanthropist, and his family" → "by businessman and philanthropist John Ruan and his family."
• Don't wikilink to United States dollar every time "USD" is written per MOS:OVERLINK
• Infobox uses "US$" but body uses "USD"; pick one option and stick with it
• "(1987-2008)" → "(1987–2008)"
• Norman Borlaug should be wikilinked at its first appearance in the body ("Norman Borlaug was awarded...") instead of at "Norman Borlaug (1987-2008)"
• "A.S. Clausi" → "A. S. Clausi" and "M.S. Swaminathan" → "M. S. Swaminathan" (latter occurs twice)
• Country and year columns in table should probably be sortable
• If there are two or more laureates in a year, the table currently groups them together in a single row, like so:

However, this doesn't allow the sorting to work fully, as some names are permanently grouped together. Also, if lines wrap around, the alignment between nominees and countries may not match up exactly. To fix this, list each laureate in a separate row, like so:

Refer to similar FLs such as List of Nobel laureates in Physics to see this in action.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, done. I have addressed the above comments. The table is looking much better. Thanks! DTM (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made a few small tweaks to grammar, but everything else looks really good. Nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No colon after "such as" but there should be a comma before it
• I'd say what Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for, indicates the background/relevance.
• No space after US$
• "US$" only needs to be used the first time, after that it's obvious what currency $ is.
• "Stinson would succeed Quinn" -> "Stinson succeeded Quinn" just use the simple past tense
• "sponsors over time have included" -> "sponsors have included"
• "provide stimulus to the young" is strange wording, maybe be more specific
• Is "World Food Prize Laureate Selection Committee" the official proper noun? Otherwise lowercase.
• Borlaug's lifespan should be when he's first mentioned at the start of the section, not later when called chairman
• "Borlaug would appoint" -> "Borlaug appointed"
• I don't think the board of advisors from 2005 is relevant enough to list. That was current when the book was written but not now. Advisory boards aren't typically listed on Wikipedia anyway, especially when it's not clear how involved they actually are...Bush and Carter probably had other things to do.
• lowercase "chamber"
• The "Laureates" paragraph isn't so much history, belongs in the lead instead.
• IRRI, SIT, and NERICA acronyms aren't used elsewhere so they don't need to be given.

Very nice overall! Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, changes made as per these comments. Hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for your nice work on this article. Any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT text seems just fine.
• File:World Food Prize logo.jpg needs a stronger Non-free image rational. "n.a." or black columns are not appropriate for non-free rational.

• Kavyansh.Singh, I have made changes to the supporting rationale over at File:World Food Prize logo.jpg. However, this particular image in its current format is hardly used on the website at present. Should I go ahead and remove it? Can anything replace it? DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Dr. Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted - World Food Prize Laureate.jpg — Not sure whether images takes for official Twitter account of US government organizations comply with the fact that the image is "a work of a United States Agency for International Development employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the picture. DTM (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Center-align the references in the "Ref." column.
• Suggesting to archive all the reference, preferable using this tool.
• There is inconsistency in writing the date format. Currently, there is mixture of "YYYY-MM-DD" (2021-12-05) and "DD Month Year" (19 June 2014). Upto you which style to choose, but it should be consistent within the article.
• There is inconsistency in linking the work/publisher/newspaper/website. Few are linked (like The Des Moines Register), while other are unlinked (like The Guardian, The Economic Times)
• Suggesting to remove "Dallas, Texas" as location in a Bibliography, as it is inconsistent with the article.
• The short footnote for Hesser 2006 work is "Hesser, The Man Who Fed the World (2006)". The title of the book is not mentioned in the short footnote of Quinn 2015. Upto you which style to choose, but it should be consistent within the article. (And if you chose to add the book title to the short footnote, write the book title in italics.

Some minor citation inconsistencies:

• Ref#2 — "Iowa Legislature" should be in the publisher parameter.
• Ref#3 — Publisher should be just "The White House"
• Ref#8 — "The World Food Prize Foundation" should be in the publisher parameter.
• Ref#14 — The title should be lowercased. And in the quote parameter: (1) the curly quote should be fixed (’ to ') (2) There should be a non-breaking space between the text and the ellipsis.
• Ref#15 — Missing author
• Ref#18 — "Institute of Food Technologists" should be in the publisher parameter.
• Ref#21 — "Hall of Laureates" should be in website parameter
• Ref#27 — website title should be replaced from "rockfound.rockarch.org" to "Rockefeller Foundation"
• Ref#29 — missing author
• Ref#31 — Add url access date, and 'via=Taylor & Francis'
• Ref#38 — Remove "(UPI)" from title
• Ref#42 — either SWI or Swissinfo
• Ref#52 — I don't think we use abbreviation in sources ("(CIMMYT)"). Better remove.
• Ref#67 — 'IFIS Publishing' should be moved to 'publisher=' parameter
• Ref#69 — Remove abbreviation
  • Ref#96 — same
• Ref#77 — Add Columbia Climate School as publisher
• Ref#80 — can you crosscheck the title.
• Ref#81 — 'University of Illinois Foundation' should be in the publisher parameter.
• Ref#90 — 'MS Swaminathan Research Foundation' should be in the publisher parameter.

Reliability

• https://www.world-grain.com/articles/10566-world-food-prize-names-new-chair-for-laureate-selection-committee — why is this reliable?
• https://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2006/october/17249.htm — same as above
  • I have replaced this source with a better one. Hope you don't mind ...– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rest most looks good! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh, done! Thanks for mentioning the archiving tool. Im not sure why I have never used one before. DTM (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems good, pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Primetime Emmy Awards are the most significant awards in American television, but I've found their articles to be a bit lacking at times. To fix this, I've overhauled this article to include better accessibility and formatting, as well as more context for the awards instead of focusing solely on listing them. This list is heavily influenced by Birdienest81's work on Academy Award ceremonies, and I hope this format can be extended to other Emmy ceremonies in a similar manner. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Jean Smart 2015 PaleyFest.png — I can't access the source link.
  • I'm assuming the image is acceptable, as other images from the same site have been verified as acceptable (i.e., this one), but just to be safe, I've replaced it.
    • I was assuming that too ... the new image is fine licence-wise. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT text for double-dagger (‡) should not be "double-dagger", but what it represents. In this case, it should be "Winner" or something like that.
  • Done.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the review! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for a "See also" for 73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards as it is linked in the second sentence of the prose
  • Removed.
• "Ted Lasso became the most-nominated freshman comedy series" - what is a "freshman comedy series"? I am not familiar with this term/concept, is there an appropriate wikilink to add?
  • Replaced "freshman" with "first-year".
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I've responded above; let me know if the changes work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Table captions are required, with or without an sronly template, so I added the ones that were missing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources. The UPSD tool isn't happy about the YouTube links; I suspect they aren't controversial in this context, but this isn't a source review.
• 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. You've got an image review already so I'll skip that.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a great list to be honest. I love how you also included the total nominations and wins tally combining the ones from the main ceremony and the Creative Arts ceremony (which is something that is indeed missing in most other lists, egregiously). My only question for clarification purposes is the statement, "The lack of winners of color was a step back from the previous year's four black winners in the same categories." Do you mean all 12 acting categories or the ones where the four black acting winners won in comparing 2020's winners to 2021's winners? Otherwise, I'm happy to support this list to featured list status.

--Birdienest81talk 10:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Does this sound better? "For comparison, the previous year saw four black winners in the acting categories." RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Yes that's much better! Affirming my support, again.

--Birdienest81talk 09:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All ref numbers as of this version.

• Ref #30 has no date listed, but the source says at the bottom of each page "07-12-2021 - 5:22 PM", so I think we can date the document as July 12, 2021.
  • Done.

Spotchecks: on refs 4, 5, 15, 38, 57, 75, 88, 89, 95, 102, 107. Can't find a single issue—very impressive.

Other comments:

• I really dislike "Controversy" as a subsection, because it contains no information to identify the subject. In this case, we have two completely unrelated types of criticism: COVID-19 safety and racial diversity (or a lack of each). The first should be earlier in "Ceremony information"—it follows on from the paragraph "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the previous ceremony had been held as a virtual event with no in-person festivities", so it could follow that one in the larger section, or you could take those two paragraphs and make a subsection "COVID-19 regulations". The second one belongs in "Winners and nominees", as it's on the same theme as the sentence "However, despite the record-breaking diversity of acting nominees, all 12 of the ultimate winners for lead and supporting acting were white".
  • I've moved all of the COVID-19 information to a new "Effects of COVID-19 pandemic" subsection as suggested. Regarding the lack of diversity, I think it makes more sense to keep it where it's at; the "Winners and nominees" section focuses more on records and statistics, while the information regarding lack of diversity is intended to focus on reception to the nominations. I also wouldn't mind moving it into the previous section and titling it "Reception and viewership" instead of "Critical reviews and viewership", if that would be better, or I could rename the "Controversy" section now that it's more focused.
    • Negative critical reception shouldn't be segregated away from other Reception, particularly titled "Controversy". On the other hand, the way you've written it is not summary of critical reception, but statement of facts. If you want it as part of "Reception and viewership" then I'd want to hear: who criticised the lack of black winners (reviewers, the audience generally, any organizations/unions)? What did they think the Emmys should have done differently? Any quotes worth highlighting (e.g. a particularly good summary of a viewpoint or argument as to the problem)? But if it was under "Winners and nominees" I wouldn't expect this information necessarily. I guess I'm not sure why in your mind e.g. "none of the 12 acting categories were won by black performers" is a different category of fact to e.g. "43 non-Anglo actors ..." — Bilorv (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bilorv: I see your point now – I did some more research and I couldn't see any specific groups criticizing the results; it seems to just be a Twitter trend. I've moved the information accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "HBO and HBO Max combined for 130 nominations, making them the most-nominated network and barely beating Netflix's 129 nominations." – Sentence needs a bit of reworking. Not sure "combined for" makes sense and "barely beating" is a bit clunky. How about "HBO and HBO Max received a combined 130 nominations, making them the most-nominated network, ahead of Netflix by only one nomination."?
  • Done.

A really well-sourced and well-written list, with great reference formatting. I also hope this work can be built upon by others, and with other Emmys articles. — Bilorv (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Thanks for your great comments! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for the speedy responses! — Bilorv (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next in my series of US protected areas is the national preserve, which like the National recreation area was a designation created to accommodate protecting places that were already impacted by people and didn't meet the criteria of national park or national monument. Then it became a way to allow hunting in protected places, sometimes connected with parks or monuments where it's banned. Although they have those differences, they're still beautiful places I'd like to visit. It's a shorter list than my others and I appreciate your reviews! Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
  • Done, though these sentences aren't actually related or parallel facts so I considered even splitting the last paragraph. Other thoughts are welcome.
• "management of reserves can be delegated to the state in which they reside" - do reserves really "reside"? Maybe "are located"?
  • Done
• "They are home to nine-banded armadillos, bobcat, river otter, alligators" - plural/singular/singular/plural?
  • Done
• Under Glacier Bay, what's ATV?
  • Linked
• "There are no roads but it is has access" - stray word in there
  • Done
• "Summer visitors float down the rivers abd see remnants of gold mining" - typo in there
  • Done
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: the list is very readable and complete; the prose section gives good informations to the reader and it has reliable sources. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• Ref#3 – "Washington, D.C."; be consistent with including location. (Either all or none)
• Ref#4 – Add URL access date and website name.
• Ref#5 – Add July 14, 2020 as date.
• Ref#6 – Inconsistent in usage of "National Park Service" and "www.nps.gov". Also, why is (U.S. National Park Service) there in the title?
  • That's how the citation tool autogenerated it.
• Ref#7 – Check the date. Of-course Nixon gave the speech on "February 8, 1972", but I'm fairly confident that the web page given here wasn't published in 1972. Also, just a suggestion that we can replace the current url with a permanent url (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/255047)
  • Not sure what you mean, I'm citing the primary souce of his speech, not the fact that UCSB put it on their website, which doesn't have a date.
    • @Reywas92 – If it doesn't has any date, better remove the date parameter. 1972 looks odd for date in a {{citeweb}} template. However, its up-to you, and is a minor issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I changed it to {citation} and it's the same formatting, I'll just leave that.
• Ref#11 and 12 are probably fine.
• Ref#13 – Title ""Do Things Right the First Time" Administrative – Quotes inside the title should be in under single quotation marks to avoid these 2 quote marks forced by the template.
• Ref#15 – If the URL is of the chapter, it should use the "Chapter URL" parameter.
• Ref#19 – Statesman Journal is linked, which is not consistent with rest of the article. And "Salem, Oregon" is included as location, which too is inconsistent.
• Ref#31 – The title should have a endash (–) instead of a usual dash (-).

Reliability

• All good. In previous such featured list nominations, using "National Park Service" as a source was determined to be OK.

Verifiability

• Archive all the citations, using this tool.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the bot, but I'm confused why it chose to link to the 2010 version of the pages for many of them.

If my understanding is correct, the IA bot usually finds and adds the latest archived URL. It may be that, for various sources cited in this article, the last archived link was in 2010. Nobody since archived it... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well these have been archived since then so idk, I may just remove them for the NPS homepages. Reywas92^Talk 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done thanks. Reywas92^Talk 13:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. Is this going to be a Featured topic sometime in future (which would be great to see). Would appreciate if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually yes! National Historic Site (United States) will need a 145-item table though.... Will do yours soon. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table |+ caption_text, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like |+ {{sronly|caption_text}}. --PresN 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, all looks well. A fine list. --Tone 14:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When all other rows have one reference, why does Glacier Bay need two; conversely, why do the others need just one? All the other references in the other rows point to a general opening page, whereas only here have you provided a specific link.
• Row for Noatak, before Ref#38 – there is an extra space.
• Support, reads well and looks good. – DTM (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Glacier Bay is a combo park and preserve and the NPS has such a webpage dedicated to the preserve, so I cited it as well. None of the other co-managed preserves have separate official pages about them and are instead covered in the context of the combined area. Done, thanks! Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's a comprehensive list with a thorough, well-sourced background section (which in my eyes is just as important as the list itself). I was surprised that we only have 21 national preserves! I suppose many states probably have their own versions of the system, though. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before there was Drake, there was Lucky Millinder. Before there was Cardi B, there was Lady Day. This list covers the start of what Billboard magazine regards as the earliest incarnation of its R&B chart. Feedback as ever will be most welcome..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ojorojo

• The second and third sentences of the lead are both over 40 words and could be split up for readability.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't a big deal, but I think it reads better now.

• The 1942–1944 musicians' strike and the wartime diversion of shellac used in 78s were getting underway. Some info on how this impacted record production and sales may be of interest.
  • I've had a search but not really found anything on those points that is pertinent to this chart. I mean, I could mention that they happened, but without being able to link them to the songs which topped this chart or to African American-oriented music specifically in 1942 (and I haven't found anything along those lines), it would just seem like a random disconnected fact dropped into the prose IMO (if you look at the list for 1943 I did mention it there, because I managed to specifically link it to that year's chart-toppers, but I didn't find anything equivalent for '42......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's no pertinent info, then there's nothing to add.

• The artists column sorts on their first name. For individuals, it's usually on their last.
  • Very confused by this comment, because the names already sort by last name and have done for over a year.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it works fine. I must have been looking at another table.

The rest looks good; refs and the image FURs all check out.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from another reviewer: more often these days, I'm seeing complaints that sentences are "too long". I agree with the principle (sometimes), but the end result of chopping sentences in half winds up being a net negative more often than a net positive. I'm not sure what to do about this trend. Chris, I'm open to whatever you want to do with this. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've broken up the sentences and don't think they read too badly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me if it works for you two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my comments have been addressed. Good job as always. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• The table needs a caption.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. No comment on hyphens (in "African American", "highly-regarded"). For today and for future reference too, usage tends to change over time on phrases such as "African American" and "black capital of America", and I haven't been keeping up. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table; When the Lights Go On Again is a redirect. FWIW, my advice is to lowercase "orchestra", generally, in "and his Orchestra" ... when I looked at the relevant articles, "X and his orchestra" didn't appear to be a consistent proper noun. (Maybe the articles are wrong, but if so, it would make sense to change the usage there first.)
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good so far, so I'll unwatch, but don't forget the table caption. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My few concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 23:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT text looks good! Both the images are appropriately licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Water 2017 American romantic fantasy film directed by Guillermo del Toro and written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. It stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Octavia Spencer. Set in Baltimore, Maryland in 1962, the story follows a mute cleaner at a high-security government laboratory who falls in love with a captured humanoid amphibian creature. The film won four Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2018 ceremony. This is my fifth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, 1917, and Slumdog Millionaire which were promoted in October 2015, January 2021, November 2020, and June 2021, respectively. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "romantic dark fantasy film" sea of blue. And not sure that "dark" is appropriately linked in any case.

• Fixed: Removed the word "dark" to now read "Romantic fantasy film" with romantic fantasy wikilinked per the film's main article.

• "...featured roles.[2]" referenced yet "... the production design." not?

• Fixed: Used TV Guide listing of film's cast and crew for reference.

• "195 million" non breaking space.

• Fixed: Added   template between "195" and "million".

• "The film garnered" garnered is repetitive here.
• Fixed: Changed second "garnered" to "earned".
• "winningfor" space.
• In fact no need for "for".

• Fixed: Removed the word "for".

• Ref 2 and ref 49 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.

• Fixed: Replaced spaced hyphens with en-dashes.

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - Done: I have made corrections based on your comments from up above.

--Birdienest81talk 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg and Octavia Spencer in — add a MOS:SERIAL comma after "Stuhlbarg"
• acting of its cast — ... what else does the cast do?
• including Best Picture, Best Director → including Best Picture and Best Director
• Best Director (Del Toro) — as he is the only director, I think "(Del Toro)" can be removed
• It was the second fantasy film → It is the second fantasy film (MOS:TENSE)
• Director and Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score → Director and Best Original Score (the reader will already know it's the Golden Globes)

Not much, close enough to support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: - Done: I made all the corrections based on the comments you posted. I was studying for a test and had a toothache. Therefore, my response was delayed a bit.

--Birdienest81talk 08:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only image (File:Guillermo del Toro in 2017.jpg) appears to be appropriately licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Del Toro" should be written as "del Toro" unless it is at the start of a sentence
• Link African-American Film Critics Association Awards 2017, Cinema Audio Society Awards 2017, 29th GLAAD Media Awards, and 8th Hollywood Music in Media Awards in dates column
• Link Cinema Audio Society Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Mixing for a Motion Picture – Live Action, Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild Award for Best Special Make-Up Effects in a Feature-Length Motion Picture, Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing – Feature Underscore, and Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing – Sound Effects and Foley for Feature Film in categories column
• There are a few more awards from IMDb that you could probably add, but at the very least, its Grammy nomination needs to be added
  • Other good awards to add (i.e., awards with established notability that likely have coverage in secondary sources) would be Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Ray Bradbury Award, Society of Camera Operators Award for Camera Operator of the Year - Film, Irish Film and Television Awards, Imagen Awards, Japan Academy Film Prize for Outstanding Foreign Language Film, Directors Guild of Canada Awards, and Hollywood Post Alliance Awards

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: - Done: I have read your comments and have made the proper corrections and additions based on them. Please note, Hollywood Post Alliance Awards was changed to Hollywood Professional Association Awards since 2017. Thanks.

--Birdienest81talk 03:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made one small tweak to a category title, but all of the other changes look great! (And thanks for noting the name change; I can't keep up with all of the different award groups nowadays.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friends is a classic TV show, and now this list can be an actually useful resource to those reading about the show. (Seriously, go read the old lead – it was basically incomprehensible.) It took a lot of work digging through Internet Archive and online databases to find sources, but I'm very satisfied with the result and confident it's ready for FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing at all, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed — 1

Formatting

• For multiple combined referenced, can we have a semi colon separating them, or is it fine the way it is?
  • I agree that the current format can sometimes be unclear, but I haven't been able to find a better option. Semicolons would look like this: ^[1]. It works, but the semicolon isn't super obvious; the line break is clearer. I tried using Template:Multiref2 in response to your suggestion, but it seems to mess up the formatting – compare ^[2] to ^[3]. I could also try bullet points like ^[4], similar to a few of the notes in the lead, but the tradeoff there is that it makes the footnote taller by indenting and by adding a line to the top of every footnote (even if I didn't type anything there, it would still be a blank line). What do you think is best?
    • I personally like the bullet points, but it looks good only if used for limited citations; but in this case, when almost half citations are multiple sources, its better to leave it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For Ref#78, could we have a link to "Factiva aprs000020010709dx1o02j9w"?
  • I don't know if there's an easy way to do it – since that ID template doesn't add the link automatically while other ID templates do, I don't think it's really possible.
    • If you have the link, you can probably pipe it. Rest, no issues... – 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I've added a link. Because my account is through a university, I can't log in through that link to check that it works, but I'm fairly confident it does. At any rate, the ID is the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rest, all the citations are consistent in formatting.

Reliability

• Overall, no issues.

Verifiability

• No issues.
• This is an excellent list, and the issues are far too minor to prevent it from passing the source review. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for your help! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would appreciate your comments or a source review for this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I mostly support this list for promotion, I have a few comments. I've never watched the show so forgive me for any obvious mistakes.

• The show follows the six main characters as they live and work in New York City — reads rather awkwardly to me. Perhaps replace "as they live and work" with "living and working"?
  • How about "the characters' personal and professional lives in New York City"?
• Also, I think "main" is redundant as I would not expect a show to not follow the main characters.
  • Removed.
• In 2002, Friends won [...]/in 1998 [...] — MOS:EASTEREGG?
  • Split year and awards ceremony (i.e., "At the 54th Primetime Emmy Awards in 2002...").
• before receiving the group's Heritage Award — what group?
  • Clarified that it's the TCA Heritage Award.

That's it. Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: I realized I never pinged you to let you know I'd made the changes you suggested; while you've already supported it, it would be great to know if the changes I've made were in line with what you were thinking. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks great! Again, best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table; Art Directors Guild Awards and ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards both link to redirects, and this can be an issue for some reviewers. You may want to check the table links.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. Sourcing: see the source review above. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. There are no issues with the logo.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. Btw, I didn't catch this one sooner because the nominations viewer tool was reporting it as having 3 supports already (it had 2). I don't know why. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Regarding the redirects, I went with those over linking to specific sections of articles because they tend to be a little more stable – if a header changes, the section link is broken, and it's easier to update one redirect to point to the right location instead of updating a range of articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but for instance, ADG Excellence in Production Design Award redirects to ADG Excellence in Production Design Awards (plural). - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, got it, I know a bunch of awards articles were recently moved from "X Award" to "X Awards" and I didn't catch all of the changes. Thanks for noticing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: It's because the nominations viewer counts both bolded supports/opposes and supports/opposes in section headers, so Pamzeis's support is counted twice since they did both. It's a bit of a pain, but we haven't wanted to try to enforce a style on all reviewers just to make the automated count on a tool most people don't use be more accurate. --PresN 15:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense ... I"ll check manually for support totals going forward. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The only image in the article is a logo that is public domain due to not meeting the threshold for originality. This aspect of the article seems okay to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as boring as it sounds, I do think it meets the criteria. All the awards, listicles and world records have sources attached to them now and my editions for it were based on lists that are already featured, such as Taylor Swift's. The makeover to a current template was done almost completely by myself, meaning that the list is not subject to edit wars either. I have also found over 100 lost awards and made sure to verify that everything is an actual physical accolade in order to avoid credibility problems. I believe without a doubt that this is the best version of Coldplay's awards and nomination list, so it would be very nice to have my contributions recognized!

P.S. I'm not really into Wikipedia that much so please be patient with me. GustavoCza (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – zmbro _(talk) 13:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "in London by" no need to link common locations such as London.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Our article on Coldplay (a Good Article no less) calls them a rock band, not an alternative rock band.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Where are the members and their roles referenced?
  • "band formed in London by Chris Martin (lead vocals, piano), Jonny Buckland (guitar), Guy Berryman (bass guitar), Will Champion (drums, percussion) and Phil Harvey (creative direction)". This is their line up since 1996.
    • I asked where it was referenced, not to just repeat the sentence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the United Kingdom and" you've already used UK.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Brit Awards" - the isn't part of the name.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Aice Awards", "Berlin Music Video Awards" etc. If these awards aren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles, then I doubt they should be considered here. Same with the listicles.
  • Found the Wiki page for the first. I made sure to search for all of those and they give out proper physical awards, so I don't see why not getting included. The Berlin Music Video Awards has been mentioned by multiple media vehicles. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • https://www.promonews.tv/news/2018/05/29/berlin-music-video-awards-2018-winners/53317
    • https://portalpopline.com.br/xenia-franca-e-baco-exu-do-blues-tem-clipes-nominados-no-berlin-music-video-awards-saiba-mais/
    • https://jornaldebrasilia.com.br/blogs-e-colunas/analice-nicolau/fred-ouro-preto/
    • https://vogue.globo.com/lifestyle/cultura/noticia/2021/06/urias-sobre-primeiro-album-raiva-de-ter-que-provar-que-sou-melhor-me-serviu-como-combustivel.html
      • If they're not considered notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I don't think they should be here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • They clearly have media coverage as I just showed though, they're just not so popular. And that doesn't seem to be a problem to the other three people who are supporting the nomination. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't speak for other reviewers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everything else is solved, come on! But anyway, can you at least put the other comments in a box? –GustavoCza (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sortable table means linked items should be linked every time.
  • Is that a new guideline? I went trough multiple featured lists and they don't link the songs and categories all the time. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not new. Other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "The band established eight world records during their career" makes it sound like their career is over.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What is Songkick?
  • Songkick. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Foreign lang refs need lang= parameter.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • Solved. –GustavoCza (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First pass done.The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to oppose until the inclusion of awards considered non-notable by Wikipedia standards are removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to discuss this. I don't have an issue with including awards that lack Wikipedia articles, but those awards should generally be sourced using reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources in order to demonstrate some degree of notability. So, for example, the Phoenix Film Critics Society Award in this list is notable enough for inclusion because the listed award is sourced to a local news source. On the other hand, things like the Žebřík Music Awards are currently sourced to primary sources such as this, which fails to demonstrate notability, and these awards should therefore be removed. I won't change my vote, but I can see why TRM might be concerned. Just my two cents. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if the awards show in question gained notability over the years though? The BreakTudo Awards for example is covered by secondary sources nowadays but it's hard to find publications about older editions.

• https://istoe.com.br/anitta-e-luan-santana-lideram-indicacoes-ao-breaktudo-awards-2021/
• https://tnonline.uol.com.br/noticias/revista-uau/breaktudo-awards-2021-divulga-lista-de-indicados-541488?d=1
• https://www.latinpopbrasil.com.br/noticias/de-maneskin-a-tini-veja-os-indicados-ao-breaktudo-awards/

The Live UK Music Business Awards is another example, they are notable to be covered by Complete Music Update, but I had a hard time looking for Coldplay's nominations: https://completemusicupdate.com/article/live-uk-music-business-awards-nominees-announced/

As for the Nordic Music Awards sources are from Verdens Gang, the most read online newspaper in Norway, with about 2 million daily readers.

–GustavoCza (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem for me personally, but I suppose I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this nomination certainly stalled out... I'm going to have to second the oppose, though. The general guideline for "awards" lists is that every award needs to be notable to be included, because otherwise you could fill out any popular band's list with hundreds of minor awards, and the way this is done is that an award is notable if it can support its own article (thereby meeting notability policies). I don't think that using a secondary source (re: RunningTiger123) is good enough- a local paper covering a local award doesn't cut it. Please remove the non-notable awards or else we'll need to drop the nomination, sorry. --PresN 13:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GustavoCza (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Does this address your concerns, or are you still opposed? --PresN 01:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose struck. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Could you wrap up your comments in a box like the others? Thank you! -- GustavoCza (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not necessary. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just going to clean up some of the references myself and then promote, but I'm seeing some concerns in the sourcing that need to be cleared up first, so:

• The "website" parameter of references should be the name of the website, not the actual url- so not acclaimedmusic.net, but Acclaimed Music (you have this correct sometimes, but not consistently). Same goes for GRAMMY.com, fonogram.hu (and www.fonogram.hu), www.flare.com, etc.
  • Solved. -- GustavoCza (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If a title is in a non-English language (e.g. 第23回日本ゴールドディスク大賞), then add a |trans-title parameter (e.g. |trans-title=The 23rd Japan Gold Disc Award). Additionally, if a title is using non-latin characters (again e.g. 第23回日本ゴールドディスク大賞), then instead of |title=第23回日本ゴールドディスク大賞 do |script-title=ja:第23回日本ゴールドディスク大賞.
  • Solved. -- GustavoCza (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the one I tripped on: what makes www.amiannoying.com a reliable source?
  • I replaced those. This website is used in Forbes Celebrity 100 so I thought it was fine. -- GustavoCza (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotchecks seem alright. --PresN 15:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Is everything alright now? I only edited things yesterday because the notifications ended up buried in my emails. -- GustavoCza (talk) 4 December 2021

• Image review – The one photo in the article has an acceptable license (CC BY-SA 4.0), and alt text has been included. No complaints here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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