The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Bangladesh has three sites on the list and a further five on the tentative list. The latter nominations are rather old, from the 1990s, so the descriptions are very brief (but still suffice). The list for Laos has just been promoted and the list for Sri Lanka is seeing some support, so I am adding a new nom. Tone 09:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from -- EN-Jungwon 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* Alt text on all images looks good.
|
That's all. ~ HAL333 07:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been open as long as usual, but as a short list that's part of a series, I think it's fine to promote without waiting another few weeks. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]
The Triple Crown of Motorsport is an unofficial achievement for motor racing drivers that consists of victory in the three most prestigious races in all of motorsport, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix. This list has the names of every driver who has won a Triple Crown race, including Graham Hill who is the only driver to complete the Triple Crown of Motorsport. Looking forward to all comments on this list! EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple more:
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. I also have a list that could do with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have to admit, I don't quite understand the interest in a grouping of races that only one person has ever won, but if it's a thing in motorsport then I guess it's a thing. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because its a rather small and simple list, any issues that exist in the list would probably be very systematic and quick to fix. Miki only scored 32 goals for the national team at a time for which game references were simple to find and that the RSSSF had a pretty good outline of all his goals and competitions. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]
Done a bit of work on this, taking into consideration the last failed nom, and now think it's ready for another go. With the World Cup in a couple of months, would be nice to get this one over the line by then. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all on sources from me; I'm happy for any other editors to comment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all on sources from me; I'm happy for any other editors to comment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all the comments I have on this neatly presented list 16:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]
This is the second nomination of this list for FLC. I had to abandon the last nom because I didn't really have much time to edit WP the last couple of months, but hopefully I'll be able to see this through this time. I've incorporated suggestions from last time into the article, so pinging Pseud 14 and The Rambling Man, who reviewed this during the last FLC. AryKun (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MeegsC (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The list certainly matches other bird lists that are currently rated FL. Though I'll repeat that right now, other than the information that "this bird has been found in the country at least once", there isn't really anything said about their numbers, where and when they're found, etc. And I guess I question how useful that really is. MeegsC (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]
This is my 6th GLAAD Media Award-related list, and I'm nominating it because I believe it has reached the same status as the previous ones and has the potential to become a featured list. The list proved to be somewhat tricky to make. By 1997, GLAAD has started separating films into the wide and limited categories, and the names have stayed the same since. However, prior to this point, the was the Outstanding Film award, and Vito Russo Film Award. So, the question was, which movie went to which category? To make a long story short, the current list is structured based on a Letterboxd playlist created by GLAAD itself. If this list becomes a featured one, them most film-related GLAAD Media Award categories will be complete. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not super well versed in FLC criteria, consider these just passing comments.
It is one of several categories of the annual GLAAD Media Awards, which are presented by GLAAD—an American non-governmental media monitoring organization founded in 1985, formerly called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation—at ceremonies in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco between March and June.this is a very syntactically complex sentence. Right now your first paragraph is two sentences, but this second sentence is composed of four nesting clauses. I wonder if all of the information here needs to be in a single sentence?
|venue=Varies? (I see that the venue does vary, but this is uncited). I'm also noticing on GLAAD Media Award that apparently it hasn't been in San Francisco since 2013, and also in past years it was sometimes held in other cites as well such as Washington DC, and Miami.
The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994 to The Wedding Banquet, distributed by The Samuel Goldwyn Company, being a separate category from Outstanding Studio Film, and would be given a second time in 1996 to The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love.again you really like putting a ton of clauses in a single sentence; I feel this could be two or three separate sentences and possibly read more clearly.
the Vito Russo Film Award ... would be given a second time in 1996and
At the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996 ... with the award being retitled to Outstanding Independent Filmwait so which was it?
The award may be accepted by any of the film's producers, directors, writers, or actors.this is maybe outside the scope of a Wikipedia article but the lead has this sentence and this led me to expect information about who accepted on behalf of each movie. Do we have any indication of which category of people is most typical? Do they give any kind of acceptance speech in the ceremony?
Call for Entrieswhy is this capitalized? GLAAD's website capitlizes it, but I'm not sure that the voice of Wikipedia need to treat this as a proper noun?
Winners are determinedyour source provides some sense of scale of how many voters there are:
Hundreds of GLAAD Media Awards voters, this might be something worth mentioning?
Since its inception,consider {{as of}} for statements like this which are only accurate to a specific date.
Initially, GLAAD only announced the winners during press releases, with the awards being given during the ceremoniesso they weren't in press releases or they just didn't have a set of nominees in general? I'm not sure if this is "I couldn't find the information in press releases". Maybe press releases didn't have nominees but were there still nominees invited to the ceremony? Were they announced there?
For the 7th GLAAD Media Awards in 1996, GLAAD made the list of nominees of two categories publicly available, announcing the winner at a latter date.Given that neither of those categories is the topic of this list, I'm not sure this is relevant? I think at the very least it'd be nice to clarify that "Outstanding Independent Film" was not one of those two categories.
Vito Russo Film Awardincluding the film Longtime Companion the documentary The Celluloid Closet and the TV serial Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. With that bolded in the lead, the reader expect this to be a complete article for that award as well, it seems like that award was given to various categories, not just to films? I feel this can be cleared up more. In any event that “second” seems to need to be qualified w.r.t. the 1996 ceremony.
Costa Bravaper a film review ProQuest 1305515837, its distributor was DTK
2009why are two films highlighted in green and in bold but only one has a
‡?
Casi Divasand
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?not redlinked but
Costa Bravais? Do you think those two are less likely to eventually have Wikipedia articles?
|type=Press release?
Like I said I have no real experience with FLC, these are just some drive-by thoughts that I had while reading. Hope at least some of them are at least somewhat useful. Umimmak (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.Umimmak (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The award was first given as the Vito Russo Film Award in 1994is a bit confusing because the award didn't exist yet. I think something like "The award was first given under its present name for the 8th GLAAD Awards in 1997, however GLAAD includes two earlier films in this category as well", something like your last sentence, and making that be an introduction would I think just make the flow clearer. Right now the reader has to read a few sentences to understand what it means to be
given as the Vito Russo Film Award.
Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold:, given that there are Vito Russo Film Awards for categories other than Film – Limited Release, this doesn't really feel like an "alternative name", per se. The article sort of reads as if the "Vito Russo Film Award" was just what the award was for this category for the 5th GLAAD Award, but it's really more like its own thing, but one of the recipients of the Vito Russo Film Award was later recategorized as a win in this category as well. Hopefully this all makes sense.
By contrast, in order for films created by and for LGBT audiences to be considered for nomination, they must be submitted after the call for entries.As a reader I was curious about this, the source provides an explanation, but I suppose this is getting perhaps too into the weeds; the explanation for why there's this contrast I suppose could go into the main article on the GLAAD Media Awards, but at least when I read this I was left with questions. Like I said though I'm not sure this needs to be addressed in detail here.
The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the textI wonder if there are any sort of reliable sources talking about other such statistics or trends? Something other than just the most recent winner so it's not a sentence all by itself?
Winners and nomineessfeels like a very convoluted way to say "GLAAD only began announcing nominees for all of its categories in 1997". I'm confused about the emphasis on press releases, it's not really about press releases in particular. And I maintain my earlier comment about the 7th GLAAD Awards being confusing, why is this mentioned if neither of those two categories was Outstanding Independent Film.
|url-status=live when you use archive links for websites that are still up, e.g., ref [21]
It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, and just wonder what types of images you considered. Some ideas off the top of my head: A venue for the award ceremony, a Los Angeles movie theater playing one of these films, a presenter, someone who works at GLAAD, a picture of an actual trophy (just realizing, I don't think lead actually mentions the trophy, is this worth noting?), etc. I realize it's always tough to find images for Wikipedia, and it might be that there are no suitable images but I just wanted to note this for the record. At some point I'll try to more thoroughly go through the references compared to overall impressions on formatting. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|type=Press release or not, but you should be consistent. For instance [10] and [11]Bad Education (La Mala Educación) for Outstanding Film,-- is there a source saying it specifically won Outstanding Film – Limited Release? (I see you have a source saying it was nominated in that category, but when possible let's try to avoid WP:SYNTH)
Goslett's writing credits also include Little Ashes (which won a GLAAD Media Award), is there not a source specifically saying it won this category? (e.g., Gale A223150277 available through WP:LIBRARY)
Followed through with the recommendations regarding the sources. Seeing as we're lucky enough with this list that GLAAD created an entire Letterboxd playlist, I decided to just use that for #25 and #35. As for the images, ideally I would like to include an image of the person(s) who accepted the award, but I have been unable to find any sources or videos discussing that. I know that the ceremony is on Hulu, but it isn't available in my country. Unless that becomes available information, it's probably best to leave it empty. I'll see about readding the section about nominations, but making a few changes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Umimmak: I readded the portion about the nominees; hopefully it's a bit more streamlined now. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments are helpful. I could not find much to comment on for my review, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I hope you have a wonderful holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]
Here's my latest nomination from the history of Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year two flash-in-the-pan acts each reached number one with their only hit ever, and Elvis gained his last R&B chart-topper before his music drifted off in other directions..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this review was helpful. I thought it would be nice to get the source review out of the way at the start. Once my relatively nitpick-y point about two author links in the citations is addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the big questions there; I'm not all that familiar with music and how Billboard works. I'm hoping it will be helpful for the article to have a layman's opinion, so that it can become more accessible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, now that my comments have been addressed, I can offer my support to this FLC. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]
I am continuing the series of WHS lists with Laos, now that Thailand and Cambodia have been promoted. Laos has 3 WHS, which is somewhat on the lower limit (I tend not to nominate countries with one or two sites), but otherwise the list follows the standard style and is complete. Tone 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [11].[reply]
I have expanded and improved on the lead section, added citations for much of it, and moved around sentences. Australia is one of the few prominent countries whose list of leaders is not featured, so I am taking it here. Please ping me if you have any queries or requests. Thanks, JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92Talk 22:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done some of them, will do a bit more later. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=colin each header cell, but if the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use
!scope=colgroupinstead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
| align="center" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]] becomes !scope=row align="center" |Sir [[Edmund Barton]], and you'll need to make that cell be on its own line in the wikicode (because of the !). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead. Normally the first cell of each row is the "header", but the way you split Billy Hughes into three rows makes that dicey.
This list has been sitting here too long without sufficient reviews; I'm going to review it myself and the close the nomination. I found two points of concern: a recent edit undid some of the above citation changes; I've reverted. The accessibility changes were also undone... by the same editor, actually. What a hassle. I've reverted that as well. Other than that, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [14].[reply]
This is my first FL nomination so go easy on me. I am nominating this article because it is well-written and reliably sourced throughout, and I think it meets the FL criteria. I'd be happy to address all comments and concerns. Nitpick away! Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that some of the reviews are a bit sparse, normally I'd let this one sit for a bit longer, but after reviewing it I'm good to promote. Source review passed as well. --PresN 18:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC) [15].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because ... I could really use the feedback on this major undertaking. I never know what people are going to want to talk about most, so I'll keep this intro short until I get a better sense of what the big issues are (if any), then I'll add that discussion to the intro. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Almost forgot: thanks to Jts1882 for creating both of the cladograms. - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) Oops ... a reviewer didn't like the cladograms for this particular list (they'd prefer a simpler format), so the cladograms are now gone. I'm open to taking another look at this issue anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: I've changed the name of the next list to List of lilioid monocot family names with etymologies, and proposed a similar name change for the alismatids ... if people are on board with both of those, then after this FLC concludes, I'll be changing the name of this list to List of commelinid family names with etymologies. Thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an accessibility concerns about the table, but I do have one about the cladograms: the orange text (which to be fair I just added, since you had it with the alismatids highlighted in green instead of this clade) is not accessible against a white background. I checked darkorange as well and it isn't much better; I think you need to switch to darkred or another dark color for it to be parseable. I know you have this cladogram in a few different articles/lists, so I'll leave it up to you which color to switch to. --PresN 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good start! First round thoughts in no particular order:
{{CSS image crop}} not playing well together, an inability of {{CSS image crop}} to deal with the squished column rendered on the small screen, or something else. You may have to work around it or even use something other than {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I need 133% in my browser, btw, so I can relate. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying about having two images, and it was immediately noticeable to me that the first one is intended to be a close-up of an inflorescence or related, and the other farther away/habit. On images, now I see what's happening and making it mess up (although the "why" is above my pay grade). I'll show it with bits of code that work and those that don't, and I'll explain what I see in the browser compared to the Wikipedia app. I think the fix is simple and may not change what the browser user sees.
Code for some that work... it just uses standard [[File:]].
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Costus pictus]]'' <br/>[[File:Costus_pictus_01.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|120px|''Costus pictus''|left]] [[File:Costus_malortieanus_004.jpg|alt="Costus pictus"|''Costus pictus''|120px|right]]
and
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Dasypogon bromeliifolius]]''<br/>[[File:Dasypogonbromeliifolius11478493874 274a47fb41 o.jpg|120px|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|left]] [[File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 27452923429 b80d2f0332 o.jpg|120px|alt="Dasypogon bromeliifolius"|''Dasypogon bromeliifolius''|right]]
and
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Ecdeiocolea monostachya]]''<br/>[[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele.jpg|120px|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|left]] [[File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya - Flickr - Kevin Thiele (1).jpg|120px|alt="Ecdeiocolea monostachya"|''Ecdeiocolea monostachya''|right]]
and so on all work fine. What they show in the app on my iPhone 8 in that column is species name with link, then below that the first image with caption (which shows up as a tooltip in a browser on my MacBook Pro – I use Firefox), then below that the second image with caption (same tooltip note for browser).
The ones using {{CSS image crop}} do not. Here is what happens, depending on which one uses that template.
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Areca catechu]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image = Betel tree.jpg
|bSize = 150
|cWidth = 120
|oLeft = 20
|Location = left
|Alt = ''Areca catechu''
}}
[[File:Areca catechu 2.jpg|120px|alt="Areca catechu"|''Areca catechu''|right]]
and
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Bromelia pinguin]]''<br/>
{{CSS image crop
|Image = Tem aspecto de tecido essa bromelia.jpg
|bSize = 120
|cHeight = 180
|oTop = 0
|Location = left
|Alt = ''Bromelia pinguin''
}}
[[File:Bromelia pinguin.JPG|120px|alt="Bromelia pinguin"|''Bromelia pinguin''|right]]
for example, show the first images moved left about 50% and slightly higher, showing their "placeholder" boxes, which you can actually see. In dark or light mode, the "placeholder" box is gray. The whole thing is quite ugly, although a bit interesting.
If the second image uses {{CSS image crop}} rather than the first (I think there are only two that are like this), a similar thing occurs, but no "placeholder" box shows and the image is moved 50% to the right.
| style="padding: 2px; text-align: center"| ''[[Poa pratensis]]''<br/>[[File:20150515Poa pratensis4.jpg|120px|''Poa pratensis''|alt="Poa pratensis"|left]]
{{CSS image crop
|Image = Poa pratensis (3883809159).jpg
|bSize = 180
|cWidth = 120
|oLeft = 10
|Location = right
|Alt = ''Areca catechu''
}}
In all instances where {{CSS image crop}} is used, there is no caption to the image. The species name with Wikilink is still above the images, as designed.
My recommendation is to cease using {{CSS image crop}}. I don't know its purpose, so I could be off base here. (Minor note of the copy/paste error for Poa pratensis... the alt in the CSS image crop says Areca catechu.)
Will save for now and let you look at that. Not sure I'm going to do anymore tonight. I haven't had a chance to dig into your replies.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{CSS image crop}} fixed this problem in the app; replaced all with basic [[File:]] usages. I also discovered that while a browser will follow the left and right parameter instructions regardless of the location of the [[File:]] call in the code, the app (at least my verson) will not; within a table cell, it puts left on top and right on bottom if and only if the left [[File:]] call in the code comes before the right one! Weird. Found one that was backwards in the code (the bananas) and had to switch them. Weird app quirks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]Hey, Dank. I found some free images of Thurnia sphaerocephala on iNat. We don't currently have any (that I can see) for that species on Commons. You could use a couple for Thurniaceae instead of the other species if you wish (that's !not! a requirement for FL). If interested, I can upload them quite quickly. Assuming you'd want a bloom/inflorescence and plant/habitat. There are good photos of both with a Commons-compatible license. Let me know. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Rapatea paludosa (flower and plant, and same size just like the Thurnia sphaerocephala ones you used), Costus pictus plant in the wild rather than a greenhouse, Areca catechu photos that you may want to peruse (the ones in the list are okay, but there may be some better ones), some really cool photos of a close up of the flower of Dasypogon bromeliifolius, possibly good photo of Ecdeiocolea monostachya in its habitat showing whole plant, can probably find a good image of Eriocaulon decangulare in its environment to replace the illustration if desired, an amazing set of Haemodorum corymbosum photos, can probably find a photo of Maranta arundinacea that is not a potted plant but is in the wild, possibly some portrait photos of Mayaca fluviatilis so they will be larger in the list, same of Strelitzia reginae, and hopefully same of Xyris gracilis. If interested, scream yes and I will work on these within the next day or so. I like to wastespend time looking for and uploading images when my brain gets fried. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image updates (I volunteer as tribute to do any adjustments to images as needed and as I suggest below, if you agree. Earlier, when I said images look best when they are the same size, with this list, the same size [as in perspective] per cell and portrait view will work best. Enjoy reading.)
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(35687112584).jpg){kind=link}
|ref= in the citation to use something other than author-date format (standard), {{Sfn}} calls without the year will give this error.
{{Sfn}} implies an author-date citation format. I have never seen a "just author" format, which is what is there now. However, I don't know that there is an actual "rule" about that (but would like to know). Standard {{Sfn}} formats would be{{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew|2010}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|Fay|Chase|2017|pp=175–211}}
|ref= parameter would not need to be defined. Currently in the article are{{sfn|Givnish}}
{{sfn|Royal Botanic Gardens}}
{{sfn|Christenhusz|pp=175–211}}
n.d. is used in the |date= parameter of the Cite template. Other instructions exist in the template documentation for no author. I don't know if this article should all be changed or not, but I'd like to get other input on this for shortened footnote usage. Tagging a couple of people. I know Peter coxhead is familiar with shortened footnotes, and tagging Plantdrew because they know lots of things. :– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]{{sfnRef}} in the actual reference, it's possible to use any arbitrary link name. So if you look at the entry in the current References section beginning "{{cite journal|last1=Givnish" it has |ref={{sfnRef|Givnish}}, thus allowing {{sfn|Givnish}} to link to it. This is most useful, in my view, for references to taxonomic databases like PoWO, where an author and certainly a date really don't make sense, but not needed for the Givnish et al. or Christenhusz et al. references. It just saves having to repeatedly type e.g. {{sfn|Givnish|Ames|McNeal|McKain|2010}}. I wouldn't myself bypass the default in such cases, and it could certainly be changed if you want. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|loc=Arecaceae, Flora of Tropical East Africa, for example, for each one. The |loc= parameter can have a url in it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|loc= is not required (unless it would be consistent among other citations in the article and is available and so on). However, it could be helpful to the reader in this case. Your call for now or for future reference. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]In order to be accessible, the image alt should describe what you see, not be the name of what you see (unless that is not in a screen readable capion, then include it). See MOS:ALT. For example, [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=rice seeds]] could instead be [[File:Rice diversity.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Rice seeds|alt=display box of rice seeds showing their color and size variety]] or possibly even more detailed alt=display box of various sizes and colors of rice seeds; brown, black, ivory, green, rust, and yellow seeds are shown. Each image should have a descriptive alt.
Example from the table for the image of the bloom for Areca catechu: |alt=the large yellow bloom of Areca catechu is dozens of long, thin, <<.... and fill in proper words to describe it>>.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption text in table is currenty the name of the species, which is already in the cell and wikilinked; in a browser (perhaps most browsers), if you hover over it, you see the caption. In the app (at least on my phone), it actually shows up as a caption below the image. The left one would be valuable saying "bloom" or "flower" or "close-up" or similar, and the right one as "leaves" or "growing habit" or similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|loc= parameter). With IPNI, it's a bit more complicated because there could be more than one entry for a taxon name.Support: I support this moving to FL status. Thanks for the opportunity, Dan, and good work yet again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little sketchy to be doing a partial image review for my own nomination! I've talked with Eewilson and we won't be doing this again, but I'm happy to do a basic review (license, alt text and basic picture quality) for the images she added. FLC coords: please let me know if you want me to ask around for an additional image reviewer. These images are: File:Bromelia pinguin 123247671.jpg, File:Bromelia pinguin 187943542.jpg, File:Achira (Canna indica) (14617918590).jpg, File:Costus pictus 135367696 (cropped).jpg, File:Yellow Nutsedge (18839920565).jpg, File:Yellow Nutsedge (18842642211).jpg, File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28996254.jpg, File:Dasypogon bromeliifolius 28998701.jpg, File:Ecdeiocolea monostachya 217897442 (cropped).jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 182968379.jpg, File:Eriocaulon decangulare 153997821.jpg, File:Haemodorum corymbosum 174081397 (cropped).jpg, File:Haemodorum corymbosum 174081444 (cropped).jpg, File:Hanguana malayana plants.JPG, File:Mayaca fluviatilis 153929932.jpg, File:Philydrum lanuginosum flower8 (16630603383) (cropped).jpg, File:Philydrum lanuginosum 59076165.jpg, File:Pontederia cordata 1 PP (cropped).jpg, File:Rapatea paludosa 169125918.jpg, File:Rapatea paludosa 173626738.jpg, File:Restio festuciformis 53303901 (cropped).jpg, File:Restio festuciformis 58266682.jpg, File:Strelitzia reginae 138543025.jpg, File:Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden by ArmAg (34) (cropped).jpg, File:Hortus Botanicus Leiden grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia) (35687112584).jpg, File:20150813Typha latifolia3 (cropped).jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638607 (cropped).jpg, File:Xyris gracilis 75638617 (cropped).jpg and File:Zingiber officinale 1123783 (cropped).jpg.
Per her talk page, the tool she used for the ones downloaded from iNaturalist won't download the image if it doesn't have a free license. Her alt text is right in line with the alt text for the other images. Eyeballing these, it's fairly easy to tell that the flowers and leaves are identical or nearly identical to the ones on Commons listed for these species. (Personally, I try to pull from Commons, iNaturalist is a bit above my pay grade.) All the files except for File:Pandanu helico 100623-4742 mms.JPG, File:Philydrum lanuginosum flower8 (16630603383) (cropped).jpg, File:Pontederia cordata 1 PP (cropped).jpg, File:Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden by ArmAg (34) (cropped).jpg and File:20150813Typha latifolia3 (cropped).jpg were imported using the iNaturalist tool, so it was mostly trivial to verify the licenses. Picture quality is good in all cases. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per her talk page, her position is that she's done an image review for the whole kit and caboodle ... I'm hoping that that plus my review of her images will be sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC) [16].[reply]
After a two-year hiatus and an arduous effort on this one due to the number of municipalities (1,231!) and the French-language barrier within sources, here is the 13th and final nomination in the set of Canada's 13 "lists of municipalities in province/territory". The end-goal is in sight. Upon bringing all 13 lists of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status, a featured topic nomination will be pursued. The standardized format from the 12 other featured lists (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island) has been carried forward. Suggestions received from the previous 11 nominations have been taken into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see this concluded!
!scope=row, not
|scope=row, which makes it a "header" cell for the row in the wikicode. Note that this means you'll need a line break after the first cell so that any "header" formatting doesn't carry over to the next cell(s).
|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" |
!scope="col" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities'''
|{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}}
|scope="col" align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}'''
|scope="col" align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''
should be
|- class="sortbottom" align="center" style="background-color:#f2f2f2" |
!scope="row" align="center"| '''Total regional county municipalities'''
|{{change|3909607|3738625|dec=1|align=center|invert=on|bold=on|bgcolour=#f2f2f2}}
|align="center"| '''{{nts|553765.38}}'''
|align="center"| '''{{Pop density|3909607|553765.38|km2|prec=2}}'''
and the same for the second row.
!scope="col" colspan=5| [[Canada 2021 Census|2021 Census of Population]]at the top, it should be
!scope=colgroupinstead of col. Same for rowgroup and rowspans, but you don't have any.
This nomination has stalled out for a long time without a lot of review, but after looking it over (and passing the source review) I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 21:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC) [17].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it includes all of the relevant information, with suitable sources. The layout closely follows that for Snooker world rankings 1977/1978 which was successfully nominated as a featured list. Thanks for your consideration. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think my only comment is one which I raised at a previous FLC but I can't remember what the outcome was. How come five players with 0 total points made it into the rankings? There must be more players who did not reach the last 16 of any of the previous three World Championships than just those five, so why were those five players officially ranked and the others not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings."to the text, which is equivalent to what happened for the 1977/1978 list article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|+ caption_textas 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.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
_(14617918590).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
| 1 ||data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray"... becomes !scope=row | 1 (linebreak)|data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray".... If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead.
Having a look through now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are stalling out a bit, so since this is a shorter list I've given this a look directly instead of waiting for other reviews first. I didn't find anything to complain about in either the list or the sources, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC) [18].[reply]
This is the fourth Music Bank related list that I am nominating. I started working on it back in April and now I believe that it is ready to become a featured list. -- EN-Jungwon 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed one sentence (the same one RunningTiger123 also mentioned), but other than that found little to complain about. I'd quibble about whether or not the songs beginning with "the" or "a" should not sort under those letters, but I'm willing to let it go since this is a South Korean list and I'm not sure if the sorting rules work differently for English-language titles of South Korean songs. Consider changing them, though, if that is more correct. In any case, also passing the source review, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC) [19].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a very informative list about arguably both one of the best and most popular Formula One drivers of this sport. In my opinion, this list also gives a detailed overview about the driver's statistics and achievements (in this case: Grand Prix wins) throughout the driver's career. This could attract the attention of the readers, mainly because he is a popular Formula One driver, as I said before in my brief text. Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*"currently competing for Alpine, who won 32 Formula One Grands Prix and two world championships." - is it Alsonso or Alpine that won this?
|
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Piquet Jr image caption - ref should be after punctuation, not before
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* 'He won consecutive world championships in 2005 and 2006, winning each seven races in both seasons.' last part of the sentence doesn't make sense. Change to 'winning seven races in each season.'
That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] |
@Radioactive39: Are you still pursuing this nomination? The above comments have been left unaddressed for two months, and the nomination will be closed soon if no actions are taken. --PresN 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been sitting here too long, so I was hoping to review it myself and then promote it. Unfortunately, after giving the lead a copyedit, I don't feel that I can, due to one major issue: the first pargraph of the lead gives a chronological overview of his career... and then the second paragraph starts over at the beginning of his career and goes through it again. It's not at all clear to me why. Please either make the whole thing chronological, or make it more clear why some things are in paragaph one vs. two. --PresN 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, made a couple tweaks, but, promoting. --PresN 15:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]