Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2023

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The state of NFL lists on Wikipedia is very poor compared to fellow major American sports leagues such as the NBA, NHL and especially the MLB. This is the first list in a project of mine to raise the standard of NFL lists. The style and format of the list is modeled after the NFL featured lists List of National Football League rushing champions and List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. I look forward to any input and suggestions that you may have! --Newtothisedit (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Link Johnson in photo caption

 Done Assuming you mean Michael Thomas as there is no Johnson with a photo.

Yes, brain fart on my part :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the table he is Michael Thomas, Jr. but not in the caption?

 Done Changed name in table to Michael Thomas as majority of websites, his wikipedia page and his jersey don't use Jr. Leaving Sr. in Steve Smith's table entry as his wiki page and jersey have Sr. on it.

• "In addition to the overall National Football League (NFL) receiving champion, league record books recognize statistics from the American Football League (AFL), which operated from 1960 to 1969 before being absorbed into the NFL in 1970, Although league record books do not recognize stats from the All-America Football Conference, another league that merged with the NFL, these statistics are recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame." - source for all of this?

 Done Added sources

• The "set record" bit should be in the same key as the rest

 Done

• Players' names should sort based on surname, not forename as at present

 Done

• "Tom Fears broke the single season receptions record in consecutive years in 1949 and 1950" - this caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop

 Done

• "Kellen Winslow became the first Tight end to lead the NFL in receptions in 1980." - no reason for capital T on Tight

 Done

• Ref 7 says it was retrieved in 2015. Does it still source the whole table? If not, what sources the last few rows?

 Done Database updates every year, still sources entire table.

• Date format in refs is not consistent. There are also refs with no publisher listed, and some with the same publisher shown in different ways.-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done References should now have standard date and publisher format.--Newtothisedit (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more point - it would be better not to use the asterisk to indicate two different things. As the symbol is there to help people who can't see the colours, it doesn't make much sense to use the same symbol to denote two different things -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not specified in the key, but their meaning is different based on the column they're used in. Would a tilde as a replacement for one of the asterisk look weird? Or would that be good option? I'm asking because I'd like to standardize across some of these NFL lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blech, you made a good point but I don't like how the tilde looks. Any suggestions on alternative characters to use besides the caret and asterisk? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

† and ‡ are pretty common..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, made changes to the symbols so asterisks are not used twice. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's just a few issues left with ref formatting. Pro-football-reference.com is shown in italics in some refs but not others, and refs 12-14 show no publisher at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, these have been fixed to match the other Pro-football-reference.com references. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These apply to the 2 big tables mostly, not the key table

• 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.

 Done--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.

 Done--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | {{NFL year|1932}} becomes !scope=row | {{NFL year|1932}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done, I believe the row and column scopes are now properly done up. Would you mind verifying it when you get a chance @PresN? First time adding those so I just wanted to be sure I did it properly. Also thank you for your example edit, it helped. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good! --PresN 19:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a recorded stat in football games." should probably be statistic here as stat isn't really encyclopedic language.
• Should be statistics in full going forward. Few more mentions of stat that need to be addressed
• I'd move the reference for the table next to the table caption, instead of as a note above the table.
• You need to add 'plainrowheaders' to 'wikitable sortable' to prevent the seasons from bolding per MOS:BOLD instructions to avoid bold links
• As there's only one ref per column in the AFL table, should be Ref instead of Ref(s)

That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved all comments Newtothisedit (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text for images would be good
• "has led the NFL" – he's not still playing, so remove "has"
• "has changed on 16 occasions" – I'm counting 15 in the table
• "in his 11 year NFL career" – unsourced, so add a source or cut it
• "the first tight end to lead the NFL..." – citation needed
• Source 10 does not cover the entire table; it's missing 2020 and everything before 1950. I would suggest adding source 9 as a reference for the entire table (i.e., list sources 9 and 10 next to each other at the top of the section).
  • Also, update source 10's access date to after the 2021 season.
• Table header: "NFL Annual Receptions leaders by season" → "NFL annual receptions leaders by season"
• Why does 2016 have its own source? If it's not needed, remove it.
• One section title is "List of NFL annual receptions leaders" but the other is "AFL reception leaders"; I'd standardize the format for the section names.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved all comments Newtothisedit (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like the AFL table should follow the same format as the NFL one for consistency.
• The statement that Art Monk was the first player with 100 receptions needs clarification, as the AFL records were absorbed by the NFL, and Lionel Taylor did it there some years earlier.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Newtothisedit (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the new table looks good. With regard to the 100 reception stat, Lionel Taylor didn't accomplish it twice; it was him once and Charlie Hennigan once. Also, that stat is mentioned in the lead section as well as the Art Monk picture. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Newtothisedit (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looking good. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checked all the sources, look fine, no concerns with them although I can't check the source from a book . MasterMatt12(talk) 17:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linked PDF of book with page number. Newtothisedit (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for but instead just tweaked some source formatting myself, and the source review passes, so promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. Btw, I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. They deserve a list, but not this list. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial minor gripes:

• Tense: Garryales has unisexual trees and shrubs, and leaves that have stalks but no stipules - have unisexual trees

• Resolved Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Plants in Gentianales have pitted wood and...

• Resolved Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For casual readers The lamiid clade will be perplexing; if there is a better way to say what this means

• Fine Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead could better explain the tie between the different families.

• Resolved Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is absorbing and beautifully, exactly written. Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you're enjoying these lists; if there's anything I can do to improve them (whether they're at FLC or not), let me know. I'm working on your last two points (it's hard, because I got the opposite advice regarding "clade" in a previous FLC, when I left it out). I get that "Garryales has" and "Plants in Gentianales" are problematic, and I'll try to come up with fixes. But: our Gentianales and Icacinales articles begin "Gentianales is" and "Icacinales is". As I understand it, this isn't usually a problem in your country ... you guys easily flip back and forth between two meanings for a word like Gentianales, but we don't (well, we haven't usually, although we're more okay with your way of doing things than we used to be). Anyway ... above my pay grade, but as long as the plants project generally prefers singular verbs after taxa (we never say "The Geranium are"), I want to avoid the plural after a singular noun. (I've found that problems like this can often be fixed by moving things around ... for instance, I could start the relevant sentence off with "Garryales and Icacinales have ...".) - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide is fine, none of these are deal breakers. Will look back in again with view to further comments in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for taking a look. I beefed up the lead ... now looking at the other problems. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great re lead. Why does lamiids redirect to Asterids in the opening sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article on just the lamiids (until now!); they're lumped in with the asterids. I've changed the link to a section link, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does. As a suggestion, given there are so many constructs of the Stilbe is from the Greek for "shining", bla type, would it be better to abbreviate as Stilbe (from the Greek for "shining"), bla Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed a little bit to Eewilson's next list, List of campanulid families, and I'd like to keep my lists in sync with hers, to some reasonable degree. Her etymologies sound different than mine in several respects, so I don't have any answers right now about what my etymologies are going to look like. I'd like to see how reviewers react to her work first. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Ceoil (no rush of course) ... this is actually about an edit you made over at List of lilioid families, but it might be relevant here, too. I'm aware that, more and more over the last couple of decades, people are uncomfortable with too many "ands" ... but IMO pulling them can create no-win situations, sometimes. In "The southern United States, tropical and subtropical Asia, and Australasia", you took out the last "and" ... if you still want that, then I'll take another look at this list (the lamiids I mean) and see if I can make some edits that work for you. But maintaining consistency is going to be hard. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Ceoil, I removed "is", "comes" etc. per your suggestion. I don't think I can go with parentheses the whole way down, so I went with commas instead. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im happy with both of your last two comments & relevant edits. Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree that the lead could be expanded
  • Expanded. - Dank (push to talk)
• The Oxford comma, particularly in the table, is used in some places but not elsewhere. Needs to be standardized
  • Removed 3 commas.
• (the anthers) Maybe insert "referring to"
  • Inserted "on" and "bulky anthers".
• and trees, that Comma not needed
  • I removed a phrase.
• Might be cool if you could link the etymological origins (e.g. convolvulus)
  • Same answer as above ... I'd rather wait to see how close I'm going to be able to get to Eewilson's etymologies.

That's all! Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks! Let me know if I missed anything. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since I didn't select any of these images, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Fortunately, licensing tends to be fairly trivial for plant images on Commons. This version of the list was just after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie (not to be confused with User:Johnbod!) Those images are still in his sandbox now. The Graphics Lab cropped a few of these images, and I cropped a few more using the CropTool on Commons. Commons didn't have some of the images we needed, and Eewilson stepped in and transferred a few images from iNaturalist: the ones for Carlemanniaceae, Tetrachondra and Thomandersia. Apart from these:

• 47 are "own work" with no indication at all that they aren't. 7 licenses (counting images that these images were extracted from) were verified by the Flickr bot, 4 by the iNaturalist bot, and one by the Panoramio bot.
• File:Utricularia vulgaris inflorescens (05).jpg was confimed by a volunteer reviewer.
• Gesneria pauciflora, the first Lindernia dubia and the second Olea europaea are US government employee photos.
• For File:Byblis liniflora 3 flowering.jpg, the WMF received a confirmation email.
• Kew Gardens verified the Oncotheca humboldtiana dried specimen.
• The one illustration is very old; no copyright problem.
• Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is always present, and spare but acceptable.
• Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Aza24 did a thorough source review over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lilioid families/archive1. These sources are largely the same, and I've implemented those suggestions here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the sources here and found no issues in formatting, reliability or verifiability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just general comments here. Leaving these five then will continue later.

• Lead: There are five lamiid orders with more than one family... seems to imply that there are only five lamiid orders. Probably a good idea to add that there are eight orders, and five have more than one family.
  • Good catch, done. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Loganiaceae: Species in this family contain the pest-control poison strychnine. All species in the family?
  • Added "Many".
    • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Rubiaceae: The roots provided a red dye. Past tense?
  • Using info from the "etymology" section, I was able to change this to: "The roots have provided a red dye going back millenia".
    • Done. I assume the source for that is Stearn? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's in both Stearn and Christenhusz. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Bignoniaceae: Jean-Paul Bignon (1662–1743), a statesman and royal librarian... makes me want to know where he's from simply because I want to know where to what country he was important (name implies France); maybe just add "French" in there (hopefully your sources say that), i.e. "a French statesman and royal librarian"; I'm not thinking that for everyone, just him so far.
  • Added.
    • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Gesneriaceae: The footnote that states Research is ongoing needs an {{As of}}.
  • I just removed the "now". Without the "now", I'm not seeing a trigger that necessitates "as of". In fact, I wouldn't even know what an "as of" would mean, since there's no central committee telling academicians when to start or stop work, and no fixed date when research on this family started, and no fixed date when it will stop. But I'm open to other approaches.
    • "Ongoing" implies "now", "currently", etc., so I would put "As of January 2023, research is ongoing." [or use whenever you got your source information; December 2022 or whatever] – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed "Research is ongoing". - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. That works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• All done, as indicated. Thanks for your excellent review. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ll have a few more in a bit. I had to take a break for an appointment and lunch. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My replies to your replies, above, and more review coming. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

• Family Hydroleaceae: Hydrolea spinosa is an invasive species. An invasive species where?
  • Here's the entire Economic Importance section from the source: "Hydrolea spinosa is invasive. A few species are of minor horticultural importance." How would you phrase it?
    • Done. Just leave it as you have it, then. But it's often the case that species are not considered invasive in their native environments. Just wondering if the source said it was invasive in certain areas. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Icacinaceae: Vines, shrubs and trees, all with stem tendrils for climbing. Even the shrubs and trees? Also, this may not be a big deal, but I don't see the tendrils on the close-up image for this family.
  • I have deleted the mention of tendrils. FGVP 14, p. 239, refers to shrubs with "scandent branches" but doesn't say anything similar about the trees. PotW refers to tendrils but is ambiguous.
    • Done. That's better and makes more sense when reading it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Lentibularia­ceae: Lentibularia, an earlier synonym for the genus, is probably from Greek for "lentil-shaped bladders". The "probably" is concerning. Do the sources say "probably" (or a synonym of)?
  • I don't follow why "probably" would be concerning. PotW says: "probably refers to the lentil-shaped bladders".
    • Done. When I see "probably" or "possibly" or other non-committal words during a review, I just want to make sure the source has said that rather than we, as Wikipedia, say that. If the source says it, then it's cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Lentibulariaceae: Pinguicula is used to curdle milk in northern Europe, and also occasionally to kill pests in greenhouses. I don't think you need the "also" here
  • Removed.
    • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Families Linderniaceae and Mazaceae: The former has this sentence: Stems often have four flat sides. and the latter has this phrase: ...with quadrangular stems.. Do they both mean the same thing? If so, should they be worded the same?
  • How would you phrase it?
    • I don't know. If they mean the same thing, I'd pick the first one ("have four flat sides") since you want to keep this more friendly to the non-biologist. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked the sources, that works for Mazaceae so I went with four flat sides. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Oleaceae: Olea, from a Latin plant name Should you say what plant or be more specific? I am left wanting.
• Family Plantagina­ceae: Plantago, from a Latin plant name Same question as Olea.
  • For both: that wouldn't be my call. Unless someone has reproduced ancient DNA, we have no way of knowing that 2000-year-old plants are identical to plants we have today; they might have been used for similar purposes or called the same thing, but that's not the same as being the same thing. And even if I could get interested in doing exhaustive research to answer these questions for one genus, I'm not going to do it for all 14,000 seed-plant genera, and FLC is generally looking for some kind of consistency in how these questions are tackled. So no, I'd rather not get started down that path.
    • Done. Well, really all I was asking is if the source had more information, not that you should find it. If that's what is in the sources, then it's perfectly fine as is. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a source says that that something was the Roman word for some vegetable, but the source gives no clue how they determined what the plant actually was, then I say nothing. It may be that botanists know how to interpret statements like these (so they say), but most of my target readership wouldn't understand the ambiguities involved. (It doesn't bother me if other editors confidently assert that what the Romans called X is what we now call Y, but I'm not willing to go that far without some sort of evidence.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Plantagina­ceae: Foxglove is also a source of digitalin, a heart stimulant. I think that should be "digitalis".
  • The source says digitalin. It's complicated. It wouldn't bother me to reword as "digitalis", but then "a source of" wouldn't be precisely right.
    • Done. Interesting. Okay, leave it as you have it, then. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Schlegelia­ceae: Evergreens, including vines, shrubs and trees with pale bark. Don't need the ending period; it is not a full sentence.
  • Fixed.
    • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Vahliaceae: The article Paleotropical Kingdom, which you link to for the word "Paleotropics", never uses the words "Paleotropic" or "Paleotropics". I'm wondering if you just should use Paleotropical Kingdom instead.
  • I am of course trying to avoid "Old-World", which is out of fashion in some circles (and rightly so). It wouldn't bother me to say "African and Asian tropics". What do you prefer?
    • I don't care. I just wondered if "Paleotropics" is an accurate term. If it is or if that's what's in the source, then it's fine as is. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Paleotropics" is in common use; we just don't have a great page to link to on en.wikipedia. Paleotropical Kingdom is where "paleotropics" redirects to. And probably, for the target readership for these lists, "Asian and African tropics" would be better in many cases. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would just link to the redirect Paleotropics instead of directly Paleotropical Kingdom, in case someone later makes a separate page. That's what I've read somewhere in the WP documentation is good practice. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, "Asian and African tropics" is safe, and I went with that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Done. Sounds good! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Verbenaceae: Verbena, from Latin for plants used in some religious ceremonies Similar question as with Olea and Plantago; is there a way to be more specific without taking up too much space? What plants? What ceremonies? I don't know. Just thoughts.
  • Reworded.
    • That's more clear. Just remove the unnecessary period at the end. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Family Boraginaceae: Is "possibly" used in the source(s)?
  • Stearn says "Possibly from L. burra, a hairy garment, in allusion to the hairy leaves".
    • Done. If the source says it, then it's cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I see for this general review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are very welcome, as always, and it's a great list! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Umimmak (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus was a hugely influential Roman poet whose Carmina are largely known to modern times because of a single manuscript from c. 1300. The first printed book of Catullus's poetry was published in 1472. Thousands of publications about him and his poetry and its legacy have appeared since then, and dozens of works have attempted to bring some sort of order to the sea of scholarship by listing, cataloging, indexing, and summarizing the books and papers about him. This article is an annotated list of these bibliographies which have been identified as being bibliographies of Catullus in third-party sources.

I realize Wikipedia does not have many "metabibliographies"; initially I was planning to do just a Bibliography of works on Catullus but as I was compiling sources to consider using for that, I realized that many sources specifically classified and discussed bibliographies of Catullus as a category of works unto itself. A full bibliography of works on Catullus I think is a monumental task, hence the number of works attempting to do this. I would like to see more topical bibliographies on Wikipedia in general; per WP:BIB these do belong on Wikipedia provided the category of bibliographies on that topic is notable, but I couldn't find too many examples to model this article off of (though see Bibliography of works on Madonna). I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a great example of what topic bibliographies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Topical bibliographies) and indeed other metabibliographies could look like on Wikipedia. I've done a ton of research for this, and have followed a strict inclusion criterion where every entry on the list is referenced as belonging in this category by a third-party source, and all annotations are sourced to third-party sources as well.

That said, this is my first attempt at a featured list and I haven't found really any FLs which I could use as a model. I've asked WT:BIB for advice but it's unfortunately less active these days. I realize I might have to tweak a few things, but am happy to make this article the best it can be with your feedback and advice.

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. Ping me if I haven't updated by Sunday 18th December. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: just pinging you per your request! Thanks for taking a look at it! Umimmak (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands.

• Hmm. I'm not entirely sure about the concept or the rationale behind using CS1 templates as, in effect, main text. I'll consider it, but remember to include the parameter |ref=none for each of them, otherwise anchors are created for each.
  • On the note of citations, you may wish to check out no. 60 (Smolenaars 1972), which doesn't appear to be citing anything.
• You don't need to separate reviews in the same reference, it causes the syntax to become a bit confused.
• Are there really no non-German bibliographies before the 1940s?
• I have edited the first sentences for clarity. Feel free to revert if you disagree.
• Lists should not be introduced as "this is a list of ..." (see MOS:LEADCLUTTER). In practice, this means the last clauses of the first paragraph (from the semicolon onwards) can be removed.
• Unsure about the second paragraph. The lead has to give importance relative to what's in the body. A large part of the article describes pre-1950s works, and yet there is no mention of this in the lead. The second paragraph seems to just be a selection of bibliographies you found interesting, when in reality it should describe trends or bibliographic evolution.
• The third paragraph could be simplified greatly. The idea that items are only included if other sources have included them in discussions of bibliographies, even if they aren't strictly relevant to Catullus, only needs to be articulated once.

As there are several issues currently, I am leaning oppose (see below). I look forward to your responses. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for taking a look. Some responses:

1. I'm not sure I understand the specific objection. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works § Basic list style – examples: Even though items in a list of works are not strictly speaking citations, our various citation templates are often a good way to format a list item. The templates provide a consistent format, and their documentation is a handy way to check that all relevant information is provided.) The templates make sure that a reader can get all the important information about a source in a consistently formatted manner.
2. As long as it isn't causing a template error I figured I didn't need to add |ref=none in every case, but I can go though and remove all the anchors even when there's no issue. Added throughout. Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. no. 60 is used to cite the section headings for Nat 1963–1964. Ah I see; will fix. Umimmak (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed the date. Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. You don't need to separate reviews in the same reference, it causes the syntax to become a bit confused. WP:CITEBUNDLE is standard on Wikipedia, no? Or is this about something else? I'm not sure I understand this point.
5. non-German bibliographies I couldn't find any reference to any; I really did aim to be as thorough as possible, erring on the side of including more rather than less so long as they met the inclusion criterion. There are earlier sections on Catullus within broader bibliographies on Greek and Roman literature (see, e.g., Marouzeau 1927 in my works cited), but I've included all the ones which got mentioned specifically within discussions of bibliographies of Catullus.
6. You've changed one sentence to read known for writing 113 poems on personal topics, but I'm not sure if all 113 poems could be classified as being "on personal topics" as this sentence implies? That's not a claim the reference makes in any event, so I might tweak this a bit. Your first change makes sense to me though.
   • I ended up slightly changing this, also went with source and avoided calling him the leading figure. Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. "this is a list of ..." I'll remove this. Removed Umimmak (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. I didn't want to overemphasize the pre-1950s works in the lead; for the most part they aren't talked about much these days other than citations for their existence. I can come up with a sentence or two about Bursians Jahresbericht, but with the rest of your point I'm not sure if that's the way you want me to go?
9. I was thinking more MOS:INTRO making it stand on its own as a concise version of the article, so if people only read the lead they'd still come away knowing the main bibliographic works.
10. trends or bibliographic evolution, I'm not sure if there's anything to say on trends or evolution; I don't want to force a narrative where none exists or go into WP:SYNTH territory. The history of Catullan scholarship as a whole has gone through multiple trends and phases which are well-documented and discussed, but bibliographies stay fairly constant? The only thing sources have discussed as it comes to bibliographies is the rise in electronic ones so I can work on adding a bit on that. The body also doesn't really discuss trends, and Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I'll work on drafting another version though.
11. The third paragraph could be simplified greatly. I'll workshop this. I guess I just wanted separately mention standalone bibliographies about topics other than Catullus, bibliographies within books on Catullus, and tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, but I can see if I can repeat myself less.

As a general question; do you happen to have any ideas of FLs whose leads you think might be useful for me to study? Umimmak (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please try to follow the indentation guidelines at WP:TALKREPLY? Otherwise things just get confusing, and formatting a reply to a # list is rather incomprehensible.

• 1: works for me
• 2: Apart from the fact that some CSS scripts go into meltdown, it helps to future-proof the article.
• 4: Not necessarily standard, but it was just a suggestion. For clarification, I'm talking about citations such as 31, 41, 75, and 83, which on their own would be two/three citations. I typically only bundle when I need to put five or more citations at the end of one sentence.
• 5: acceptable justification
• 6. feel free to do what you like with the first sentences; I just felt the original was a bit clunky with all the "Catullus"s.
• 8-11: On the lead: for the second paragraph, I was thinking an outline summarising points such as the opening of Konstan 2010's biography section ("In the first half of the 20th century...such literal interpretations have been superseded"), or Skinner's 2015 introduction. While this is an list of bibliographies, you should show some engagement with the scholarly aspects found in those bibliographies too. This only needs to be a couple of lines; then you can outline the most important bibliographies (in an order, probably chronological). As this is a list, and therefore not as naturally comprehensive, greater allowance can be made for information not in the body; obviously, information in the body should still all be covered, in some way or another.
• Striking my earlier !vote, I hope you find this helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: My apologies; I thought numbering points would make it clearer to refer to specific topics; I'll avoid that in the future and just use the reply box. Anchors should all be taken care of. I can unbundle if other reviewers wish, I have the tendency to want to bundle sources if they're all being used for the same purpose. There was also initially some going back and forth on my end as to how many book reviews these bundles refs would have; I ended up only including two or three, focusing on English-language, online, and which most discussed the bibliography when possible but an earlier version had every book review I could find -- at one point there were 7 book reviews for Buchner-Hofmann. But point noted that I don't have to be as scared of two or three consecutive footnotes for the future.

Okay that makes sense re the second paragraph, thank you for those comments. There's certainly a lot to be said about the history of biographical research on Catullus or the history of analysis of his poetry, etc., but I'm not sure if there's much to say about how bibliographies have changed over time, other than how they indirectly give a picture of changing research trends? I'll try to come up with some more research for this part; I just don't want it to be my engagement with the scholarly aspects if that makes sense.

I did quickly rewrite the third lead paragraph by the way, not sure it's perfect yet but it's hopefully a tad less repetitious. Umimmak (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now gone through and put the second lead paragraph in as best chronological order as I could. It made more sense to me to discuss Granarolo's Lustrum articles together and then the two books, rather than Granarolo, Harrauer, Holoka, Granarolo, but I can reorder this if you like. Umimmak (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better in all respects. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the helpful comments to make this a better article! Umimmak (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It good to see a list on the Classics. Here's what I got:

• My major concern is regarding criteria 4 of the FLC criteria - structure. Is there some way you could make this list into a table, making it more readable and allowing for sort features?
• "known for his collection of 113 poems" sounds as if he collected/preserved poems rather than composing them. Edit for clarity
• What's the difference between a survey article versus a review article?
• "who first compiled" -- what does "first" mean here?
• Could the two links in the "See also" section be integrated into the lead in some way?
• Bullets in the "Works cited" section may make it look cleaner

That's all. ~ HAL333 00:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks for your comments, my responses:

• Criterion 4 reads where helpful. I honestly don't think a table would make this more readable; to me a table would just be for the sake of using a table, whereas a simple list doesn't force all items to be treated the same way (books, chapters, journal articles, websites, etc., all have different metadata) or to squish things like annotations into a single cell. Plus this many columns would make it so it would be too wide for many readers' screens (especially with the images for 5b). It does make use of section headings and is easy to navigate in the most useful sense, namely chronological order. I'm happy to try to play around with this, but I think I'd like more guidance as to what readers would actually want. (If I were to make this sortable, then I'd get rid of section headings, and to me that would make this far more unnavigable, for instance. And what would people realistically need to sort this by?) I hope you don't mind my mild pushing back on this; this would be such a massive change to the article I'd want to make sure it's actually an improvement.
• How does the following work for you? Just trying not to undo the suggestions from AirshipJungleman29:
  • Gaius Valerius Catullus (c. 84 – c. 54 BCE) was a Latin poet and a leading figure of the Neoterics. Catullus and his poetry, comprising 113 poems,^[1] have been the subjects of many books and papers ...
• I think most people treat survey article and review article as being synonyms; Is there a sentence where I imply they're distinct? I realize I wikilink review journal and survey article which both redirect to review article -- at one point in the future I can imagine there being separate articles for review journals and review articles -- but I can remove one of those wikilinks if you like?
  • Wikipedia does have separate articles for literature review and review article so I've wikilinked them both. The main difference I'd make is that a literature review can be a section within a larger article or book whereas a review article is its own publication in a scholarly journal.
• Skinner began co-editing Oxford Bibliographies with him in 2019. Figured this didn't need to be in the lead since that information appears in the actual list entry and the main goal of that sentence is to contextualize the writer of that quotation. Should this information be included in the lead? I didn't want to bog it down with unnecessary detail and I thought the quotation was a nice way to end the paragraph, but can try to figure something here if you deem it necessary.
• I'll work on this, will ping when I've come up with something.
• Not sure I understand the problem with hanging indents? I suppose this is just a WP:CITEVAR thing, but I in general prefer hanging indents as they make it easier to skim for an author's name as they jut out from the rest of the citation. The documentation to {{Refbegin}} reads: This option can be useful in long bibliographies/reference lists and in particular when individual entries in the list are long, i.e. they wrap over more than one line in the browser display window. Applying a hanging indent to the list makes it much easier to distinguish the keywords (i.e. normally the authors' names) in the bibliography and makes them stand out from preceding and succeeding lines of text. Hanging indents in bibliographies also form part of several widely used citation style implementations, such as APA, MLA, and Chicago.

Thanks again, I'll re-ping when I've rewritten the lead to incorporate a wikilink to metabibliography and L'Année philologique. Umimmak (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Driving by, I agree that a table wouldn't make this "easier to navigate" (WP:FLCR#4), though I can see the argument that the sorting by date is haphazard (who will be accessing it that way?) I haven't responded here as I don't exactly feel equipped to judge this article but I will say that I think it is exciting to see an annotated bibliography at FLC and send my support for annotated bibliographies in general. czar 03:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Czar: Thanks for your comment about table vs list and your overall excitement for more annotated bibliographies at FLC -- definitely would like to see more in the future! To me it made more sense to do it chronologically since that shows clearly which bibliographies will be the most up-to-date, which ones build off of earlier ones, etc., and a reader gets a sense of the overall change in the field over time in terms of names, journals, and it's also a clear way to see there was a surge of bibliographies covering the span 1958-1970 mentioned in the lead. Plus chronological order is the standard order I've seen in my sources. Umimmak (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To be frank, I'm not sure how one would put this list in a table in a reasonable format, so no worries. The lead improvements look good. I might just add the Skinner suff to a footnote. I'm fine with everything else. ~ HAL333 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @HAL333: I've made a first pass in changing the lead per your suggestions, though (apologies for the mis-ping in my edit summary!). I ended up saying a compiler of Oxford Bibliographies Online's bibliography of Catullus instead and taking out the whole "first" bit in the lead. If I'm going to talk about l'APh in the lead there are a few additional papers I'd perhaps need to incorporate but they might take some time on my end to read, mostly being in French, but I've provided at least the basic information in the lead. I'm also glad you agree it would be unreasonable to convert this into a table though. Umimmak (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. If it's too ungainly to incorporate it into the lead, it's no big deal. ~ HAL333 19:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @HAL333: unfortunately the articles I skimmed didn't have too much to say relating l'APh to more specific bibliographies, but I think I've successfully incorporated discussion of lAPh and "metabibliographies" into the lead. Anything else I can do? Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm content with the changes. ~ HAL333 23:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your endorsement and your comments which made this a better Wikipedia list article! Umimmak (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Been reading my way through the article's body for the last week or two, and draw no issue with it. Made a small CE to the lede. Happy to support promotion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Umimmak (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; I'm a little surprised that no one has an issue that none of the non-English titles are translated, but if that's the consensus here then I'll let it go. Promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of accolades received by English singer Zayn Malik, who was previously a member of the boy band One Direction. This is my second nomination, and after expanding the list, I believe that it now meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated! Harushiga (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The latter was nominated" - this is confusing as it is so far removed from the mention of the songs. At first glance I thought it meant the latter award in the previous sentence :-S Fixed
• "which was included in the soundtrack" => "which was included on the soundtrack" Done
• For the awards won as part of One Direction, presumably these were won jointly with the rest of the group....?
  • All of the members won as individuals (including the other co-writers for those songs). The sources don't actually group them together.
• ""Me, Myself and I" (Beyoncé)" - makes it look like Beyoncé was a co-winner, which I'm pretty sure she wasn't Fixed
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comments! I've addressed them above. Harushiga (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was one of the winning songs at the 2018 BMI Pop Awards and the iHeartRadio Titanium Awards, and the collaboration received accolades at MTV's Millennial Awards and Video Music Awards." Too wordy; suggest: "It won awards at the 2018 BMI Pop Awards, the iHeartRadio Titanium Awards, and MTV's Millennial Awards and Video Music Awards." Done
• Suggest adding on the 2019 and 2020 recognition. Done
• There's no need to abbreviate and write out BMI every time. I would suggest just getting rid of the abbreviation. Done

Ping me once you address these. FrB.TG (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the suggestions! I've addressed your concerns above. Harushiga (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been up for a really long time, so this is a review and a source review and a close. I didn't find any issues worth holding up the close for, and the source review passes, so promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well sourced and extensive list of his work. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cowlibob, @SNUGGUMS and @Krimuk2.0 (as they've added comments to previous FLC of mine) to see if they'd have time and interest in adding their feedback. Nom has been sitting a while so trying to get more input :) Thank you all! LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "whose career began in 1992 when he was cast in the role of Kirby Philby in the TV series Sisters until 1995" - this reads a bit oddly. I would suggest "whose career began in 1992 when he was cast in the role of Kirby Philby in the TV series Sisters, a role he played until 1995"
• "Rudd has appeared in numerous films directed and produced by Judd Apatow whom he frequently collaborates with including" => "Rudd has appeared in numerous films directed and produced by Judd Apatow, with whom he frequently collaborate, including"
• "He is set to reprise the role again the upcoming 2023 film" => "He is set to reprise the role again in the upcoming 2023 film"
• "December 2007" is a pretty blah caption. Could it be expanded to say where he was?
• Chuck/Kunu has no spacing but Scott Lang / Ant-Man does
• Think that's all I got, great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All  Done plus I added more to all the image captions. Thank you CTD! LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi CTD! I've had more input from users, can you take another look and let me know if I need more supports or if this would be good to promote? Thank you! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:02, 16 January 2023 (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 them.
• "Scott Lang / Ant-Man": appears to be a MOS violation per MOS:SLASH, but I see slashes used in this way from time to time, so I'm wondering if people have come to an understanding that I'm not aware of.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool is marking one of the sources in red (TV.com, and that's also a dead link), and four sources in yellow ... I'm not sure how to handle this, so I'm going to punt sourcing issues over to whoever does your 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support (but I'll take another look at this after the source review, to make sure). Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1995, he co-starred in his feature film debut alongside Alicia Silverstone in the cult classic Clueless, one of his more notable early roles, as well as Tommy Doyle in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers." is referenced to a Rolling Stone article which has no mention of Rudd or the role in terms of his career. Certainly his appearance in the films can be sourced elsewhere, but the claims of "his feature film debut" and "one of his more notable early roles" need specific sourcing (or should be dropped). The reference only establishes the cult-status of the film. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay in getting back to your comment, but I have adjusted the sentence to remove the "feature" and "more notable early roles" to read as "In 1995, he co-starred in his film debut alongside Alicia Silverstone in the cult classic Clueless, as well as Tommy Doyle in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers". Thanks for the comment, let me know if you have any others! LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Lady Lotus now apologies for my delay. Unfortunately, there's still a problem, nothing in the Rolling Stone reference indicates that Clueless was Rudd's feature film debut. Please ping me as this is not on my watchlist. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I had removed the "feature" part of that sentence and now it just reads as his film debut which is just a fact I didn't think needed a reference for since Clueless came out in July 1995 and Halloween came out in September 1995. Let me know your thoughts, thanks! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry you've had to wait so long for more input! I'll happily revive this nomination with a review:
  • • <3
  • File:Paul Rudd (cropped).jpg has an unusually large for me, but that just might be from viewing it on my phone vs. laptop. Thankfully no copyright issues either way.
  • The file source for File:Paul Rudd LF.JPG gives a 404 error, and might not be needed anyway with a better image used earlier.
    • I've replaced just so theres no issues later on
  • It looks like File:Paul Rudd on MLB Network (22211656364) (cropped).jpg is marked as "All rights reserved", meaning the pic unfortunately is copyrighted :(.
    • Makes me wonder if they changed the licensing since they've been uploaded, but I swapped with free licensed one
  • The tables shouldn't have rowspans (it's also highly ironic seeing those here when you've frequently gotten rid of them elsewhere)
    • Listen. Lol! Since FILMOGRAPHY allowed them to be in Year column, it was a fight I was tired of fighting, you'll still me take them out for other columns but some users are hardcore for rowspans :( I did take them out as I think for FLC, it needs to be the best and rowspans just don't belong :)
  • Since when are theme park attractions used for lists like these? It's not on a screen or a stage.
    • I'm glad someone said it, I don't know how they started getting added into pages but I removed for this page altogether, doesn't belong in a filmography or list for screen and stage
• There's something for you to work with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, if you have any other input I'm always appreciative of your opinion. Thanks Snug! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and while I don't see any licensing issues with File:Paul Rudd 2013 (cropped).jpg, he looks pale in that compared to the others. I'd say you only need the top image used and can take out File:Paul Rudd at a presser (cropped).jpg (which isn't copyrighted but it feels better to use film events like premieres and even movie award ceremonies on lists with such credits when possible and this is a Comic-Con). Something I forgot to mention earlier is that episode counts for main starring or major recurring roles are frowned upon per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. As for rowspans, whoever decided to let them be used for years was enabling lots of unnecessary trouble. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Comic Con image, and replaced episode count. HIGHLY agree on the rowspans. I was always told it was terrible for screenreaders but somehow that got through. Ugh! LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just take out the pale face from Anchorman 2 premiere and you'll be set (one image is enough in this article and I prefer what's used for the Ant-Man premiere). Not enough to prevent me from giving my support here, thankfully. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka has eight World Heritage Sites and three sites on the tentative list. The format is standard for the WHS articles. The list for Laos is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following the destruction of the Anuradhapura" => "Following the destruction of Anuradhapura"
• "Through centuries, it was abandoned" => "Over the centuries, it was abandoned"
• "The complex also comprises restored entrances, a pond, and residential buildings" => "The complex comprises restored entrances, a pond, and residential buildings"
• "It was active until the end of the Anuradhapura era, until the early 11th century" => "It was active until the end of the Anuradhapura era in the early 11th century"
• That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 11:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - that was easy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a tree that grew from the cutting from the Bodhi Tree." feel like this should 'a cutting' as 'the cutting' suggests it's the only cutting. Unless of course, it is the only cutting
• "Buddha's tooth relic was moved to another location." Assuming we don't know where that location was? If we do, should be mentioned
• "after having his father King Dhatusena killed." having is redundant here
• "The shrines got their present form in the 18th century." how did they get their present form? Got isn't the best word to use here as it doesn't describe how the process was achieved

That's it from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :)

Thanks for checking! Fixed the first one, removed the part of the tooth in the second one (the source does not say where they moved it immediately, and it is probably not relevant). Having is key here, he did not kill him himself. The last one, there were several renovations and what we see now dates to the 18th century. I think the wording works but I am open to suggestions. --Tone 17:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, slightly misread the second sentence I mentioned. In that case, I think 'his father King Dhatusena was killed' works better than having his father killed. The last point is tricky as there multiple renovations. I was thinking acquired instead of got but I'm not sure that works either. Maybe the sentence needs to reflect the fact there were multiple renovations so something like, 'The shrines underwent several renovations until the 18th century and have remained the same since.'? NapHit (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it now. And having killed is better because it shows who was behind it, small details ;) Tone 17:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I changed the 'having' to 'he had' as it was only seeing your most recent comment I realised what the sentence was trying to say. Great work regardless! NapHit (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the province column, you have entries like "Sabaragamuwa, Southern". I would change those to "Sabaragamuwa and Southern". The current form makes it seem like the first province is a subdivision of some larger political unit.
• "as well as some exquisite" Not very encyclopediac lingo
• I would capitalize the first "s" in "several sites"
• "Ancient pilgrim route" --> Should that be "pilgrimage route"?

That's all. And I hate to turn this into a quid pro quo, but can you check out my featured list nom if you have the chance. Thanks, ~ HAL333 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! I'd leave a small s in several, as I've been using this style before - to make it clearly different from provinces. The pilgrim route is in the UNESCO source, I wouldn't want to change that. I'll check your nomination ;) --Tone 09:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps worth mentioning that 194 countries are signatories. See [7].
  • Interesting point but maybe too detailed for the particular article?
• "city was finally destroyed in 993 by Rajaraja Chola". He does not seem to have been known by that name. Maybe "the Chola emperor Rajaraja I".
  • Fixed.
• "The style of these frescos remained influential in the following centuries". What does "remained" mean here? I would suggest "was influential".
  • Fixed.
• "Kandy is the place where the relic of the tooth of Buddha is currently stored". A bit clumsy. Maybe "The relic of the tooth of Buddha is stored in the city".
• "(following the tradition of moving the relic when changing the capital)". This implies that Kandy is the capital of Sri Lanks now.
  • Restructured this part. "Former tradition" should clear the confusion, I suppose.
• "The flora is a relic of Gondwanaland and there are many endemic species....The area is also home to numerous species of birds, mammals, butterflies, and amphibians." I think there is more to say about why this site is important. I suggest deleting "and there are many endemic species" and changing the last sentence to "numerous endemic species". Then you could say "The flora is a relic of the ancient Gondwanaland supercontinent, and it is important for the study of biological evolution and continental drift." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect, fixed. Thanks for checking! --Tone 10:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and a look at the link-checker tool didn't turn up any issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A list of every quarterback to start at least one game for the Los Angeles Chargers. I've added details on the reasons why the Chargers have changed their quarterbacks over the years, plus citations. Hopefully up to FL standard. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kemp was waived" - what does this mean? Is there an appropriate link?
• "Hadl was named the starter after playing well in relief" - what is relief? Is there an appropriate link?
• "after playing well in relief in the in Week 12" - couple of stray words in there
• "Leaf, the #2 overall pick the 1998 NFL draft" - think the word "in" is missing
• "Whelihan was cut" - what does this mean? What did he get cut by?
• "didn't re-sign" => "did not re-sign"
• "Summary by quarterback" table is completely unsourced
• No explanation on the last table of what "Comp", "Att", "Yds", etc mean
• That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - I've gone through these changes. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• The part you're not going to like, though: as per MOS:COLHEAD, those neat mid-table column headers aren't accessible. Screen readers do weird things with them, both because they're cells to which the top headers don't apply, and because you made them actual headers which is going to read weirdly for every cell below them. If you want to keep them, split the first table into three tables, otherwise they have to go.
• The post-season table is missing column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season || style... becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Los Angeles Chargers|border=2}};"|Season (linebreak)!scope=col style....
• The Summary by quarterback table was messed up, but it was quicker to just fix it then try to explain- you were trying to have some columns take 2 rows when the second row didn't exist.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - changes now made. Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to put 'plainrowheaders' next to wikitable to prevent the years from bolding. I've done the primary table as an example
• "Herrmann started in Weeks 11 and 16 due to two separate Fouts injuries." feel like 'Fouts injuries' should be changed to 'injuries to Fouts.' The way it's written suggests that these are types of injuries rather than injuries sustained by the player
• "two separate Humphries injuries" again here
• I think you can keep the key to the summary table showing all the time. Not really sure what the point of hiding it is seeing as a casual reader, such as me, will need to know what the columns in the table represent
• Ed Luther and Mark Herrmann need en dashes adding to the period column in the summary by quarterback table
• The colours on the passing table are obscuring the sort keys. I understand why you're using them, but it might be worth removing them so people know they can sort the table
• Sources look fine, but in some places, you have a mix of DD-MM-YY and MM-DD-YY. As an Englishman, the DD-MM-YY doesn't bother me but it probably should be MM-DD-YY given it's an article about an American team. At the very least you need to stick to one form or another. Ref 4 and 165 are examples of ones that need changing

That's all from me. I also have a list that could with a review here if you've got the time :) NapHit (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've made these changes. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now my comments have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Friesz won the starting job in a preseason contest with Tolliver." Reword this, perhaps something along the lines of "Friesz won the starting job after outperforming Tolliver in a preseason game"
• "Brees was benched for poor form after starting the first eight games" change to "Brees was benched for poor performance after starting the first eight games"
• "Rivers was allowed to go to the Indianapolis Colts in free agency" To go to is clunky wording, change to something along the lines of "Rivers was allowed to leave for the Indianapolis Colts in free agency" or "Rivers was allowed to join the Indianapolis Colts in free agency"

That's all I've got, I always liked Rivers when I was growing up and Herbert is incredible to watch, so I'm glad to see this list is so well sourced and informative.--Newtothisedit (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - edits made. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Newtothisedit (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All four of the photos used have appropriate free licenses. While this isn't strictly a requirement, adding alt text to the images would be nice for accessibility purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - alt text now added. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'll wait and see what people want to talk about before I come back and discuss that in this intro. I hope you enjoy the list. - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited these lists to make the etymology (the origins and meanings of the words) more prominent, and in general to try to answer questions such as: Have I seen these plants before? Where? What do they look like? After I'm finished with this list series, I'll collaborate on a list of flowering plant tribes rather than families (and some families include many tribes). That will allow more accurate descriptions of flowers, foliage, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (Note: per a discussion at WT:PLANTS, it looks like I'll be removing "etymologies" from the page title, but everything above still applies.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Quick comments, I'll do more thorough ones later:

• is there a reason you don't have author citations for any of the families? ICNafp and MOS:ORGANISM recommends their inclusion for first mention of taxa in these sorts of lists. (see, e.g., List of ant subfamilies, List of Symphyotrichum species, List of mustelids, etc.)
• these are all presumably extant families, are there any extinct families? Christenhusz and colleagues write We do not attempt to provide a full overview of the fossil history of each family, as this is a different discipline and not relevant to the general reader interested in living plants
• how stable is this? are there families that were once considered to be in this grade but are no longer? ones which recently were moved? do any notable sources disagree with Christenhusz and colleagues?
  • Disagreements: that's already in Note e. That's the only disagreement I'm aware of. And the wikiproject is more or less on board with going with POWO's current taxonomy (for flowering plants, anyway). - Dank (push to talk)
• Christenhusz and colleagues also mention information about each family's phylogeny and evolution, how long they've been in the fossil record, as well as the number of genera and species. Is there a reason you prioritized the etymology over those?
  • One reason of course is the current change in direction to etymology, but another reason for not including species and genera counts is: they change too fast. - Dank (push to talk)
• (usually a genus for which the family is named) so are any of these etymons not the type genus? feel this should be clarified if any have non-obvious type genera
  • They're all the current type genera ... I didn't feel a need to say that "there are no exceptions" when people could find that out by skimming to see that there are no exceptions. But I wouldn't object to adding text to that effect if you want to suggest something. The two previous lists did have exceptions, so if reviewers approve of the direction this list is going, I'll probably say more about that in the previous lists. - Dank (push to talk)
• I'm not really sure why you have a Latin and Greek dictionary in your Further reading; cite them if you need to any etymologies, but WP:FURTHER reads A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article -- neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
  • They seem relevant now, at least. - Dank (push to talk)
• in general I'd like to see specific page numbers for each family's common name versus a single citation to a 44-page span for better text-source integrity, although I suppose the footnotes on distribution do provide this
  • One reviewer sort of brought that up for the previous list (but then decided the span was okay after all). This isn't a big deal, of course, it's not hard to add a cite, but ... many of the rows cite the relevant 1 or 2 pages three times already ... I don't know. An extra citation would feel a bit like overciting to me, for various reasons. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Added a note; see below. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• which source are you using for which orders compose "lilioid monocots" as a grade? I also feel this lead should to a better job explaining that this is a grade, not a clade. I see your footnote The lilioid monocots are a subgroup but not a clade, but as a reader I'm wondering why does this even exist as a group, what use does it have, etc. I know most of this information should be in the main article for the grade, so you don't need to go into too much detail, but I found it interesting that Christenhusz and colleagues never mention the term "lilioid monoclot", so a bit of discussion justifying this as a useful category might be useful? I'm not a botanist, so just these are my questions as a reader.
  • I asked a similar question of Plantdrew (I won't ping them unless you need them) ... on whether it made sense to do what I'm doing, using "commelinids" in one page title but "lilioid monocots" in the other. Basically, their position was that that was what they were leaning towards, since Commelinids and Lilioid monocots are the page names we've had for a while. I think the support for those pages also expresses a preference for how folks at WP:PLANTS tend to classify these plants. My sense is that the sources are also nearly unanimous on this point, but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "grade" has now been added and sourced to a definition. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of experience with FLCs or WP:PLANTS for that matter, these are just my immediate thoughts when I see the article. I'll do a closer read later. Umimmak (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: with the name move and emphasis on etymology, this seems like it just repeats what’s in List of plant family names with etymologies for these families? Umimmak (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I'm not finished, I'm about to add two images to each row. WP:Summary style applies to lists as well as non-lists, and it's not just okay at FLC, it's encouraged, to create sublists of existing lists that have more (hopefully useful) details. The points that you're bringing up are similar to points that came up twice before (I think) when I was getting all my etymology lists through WP:FLC; see my user page. Each time, after some discussion, the answer wound up being the same: a slight shift of the list name and the focus. It worked before, and I hope it will work now. There were actually some good reasons for trying to get people on board with these as plant lists, but the changes you're asking for (which you're completely entitled to ask for, and you're right about what the proposed guidelines say) won't work here; these lists are something different than the usual plant lists, and they have different goals. So ... it's time to shift the focus back to etymology ... with the permission of the reviewers, of course. Let's see what people have to say. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finished (though I'm going to change a handful of images later). Some of your questions probably don't apply to this list now (since it's structured as a list of names and etymologies), but some still need answers ... I'll reply inline later tonight. Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the speedy review, and it was helpful, too. Anything else I can help with? - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate that I really don't have much experience with plant articles, featured lists, or with etymology lists on Wikipedia and hopefully other editors can provide more guidance; I don't want to lead you too off course based off the musings of a random editor.

I hesitate to talk about process of any kind on Wikipedia, because such discussions are often perceived as ... or turn out to be ... one of those games where the goal is to successfully change the rules of the game so that you win the game. But there is something about WP:FLC (and WP:FAC) that probably needs to be said, because it's so different from so-called "normal editing", so that you'll understand why I'm saying no to some of the requests. In "normal editing", if you're chatting with just one other person, then it's really a two-person conversation ... sure, there are guidelines to follow that were (usually) written by other people, and anyone could show up at any moment ... but in the moment, it's just a (hopefully friendly) chat between two people. At FLC, it's never just two people. The others aren't talking at the moment ... I'd be surprised if more than a few are even paying attention, they tend to be busy, successful Wikpedians with better things to do ... and if they are watching, they aren't interjecting because that's (often) the etiquette around here ... but they're around. This is the 14th in a series of FLCs, so that's what, maybe 40 or 50 reviewers so far? I'm not saying there's any heavy burden involved, I just have to employ reasonable social skills, and not assume that the next person walking in the door overrules everyone else because they happen to have the floor for the moment. - Dank (push to talk)

I still think it'd be important to have the authorities for each family if this is a list of families; did Plantdrew have any thoughts on that? I couldn't find your conversation. And now if this is about etymologies, well then perhaps the authorities for each type genus should be includes as it was their decision which affected the name of each family.

Search for "Dank" on Plantdrew's current talk page (but there's not much to see there). We didn't talk about authorities. My reading of the proposed guideline you're citing, MOS:ORGANISM#Sources and authorities, is that it specifically recommends not to list authorities in running text except in specific cases, and this isn't one of those cases ... this isn't (now) a list of plants. And I've got other objections, but that one seems sufficient to me.

I'm not sure if I'm still quite convinced by this page's new goals; if a reader is at List of plant family names with etymologies, what additional information about etymologies do they get by going to List of lilioid monocot family names with etymologies?

Most people's perception of etymology is something that happens in one or two lines in a dictionary ... of course it makes sense to ask "What's the point of all this other stuff?" But that's not all etymology is ... broadly speaking, it's whatever answers a reader's questions about where a word comes from, questions such as: Should I care? (Well, if this plant doesn't grow anywhere near you, then maybe you don't care, so here's some information on the global distribution.) Have I seen this plant, is this something I'm already familiar with? (Well, here's a one-sentence description and a couple of images, maybe that will help.) Is there any special reason to care about this word more than other plant words? (Well, here are a few things unique to these plants, maybe that will whet your appetite for this bit of knowledge.) And so on.

... If "lilioid monocot" is a standard grade (a word which, I think, should appear in this article?), sure then it makes sense to have a list of its families, but I personally don't see the need to repeat etymologies when I could see valuable table space being given to other topics. But again this is from someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about! The lead has information about monocots as a whole, but I'd like to see more information about this particular group; what are the defining characteristics of lilioid monocots and what is your source for which orders/families are included?

Seems reasonable, I'm just not the ideal person to answer. I'll ask around.

Umimmak: on this point, we're in luck, because User:Michael Goodyear is a stalwart of the plants wikiproject, knows a huge amount about lilioids, and got lilioid monocots up to GA. I've looked over the approach he's taking in the article and on the talk page, and decided to borrow the first sentence below the lead from that article, because I think it deftly answers several of your questions all at once. (And I have no objection to pulling in more sentences from the article, if necessary ... but I want to keep this list lightweight if possible, and suitable for readers who are new to botany to the extent that that's possible.) I've added that sentence added an edited version of that sentence as the second sentence in my lead. (The ref is a dead link but it's available online elsewhere, I'm working on that now.) Christenhusz is the source for the included orders and families; I've made that clearer. (It used to be really clear ... I had it right after "33" at one point ... but one of the previous reviewers didn't like cites in the middle of a sentence.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you're borrowing sentences from that other article. I'm still confused how Christenhusz and colleagues' book is the source given they don't use the word lilioid once though? That's a fine source for which families are in those four orders, but they don't say that those four orders make up the grade "lilioid monocot", if that makes sense? And yeah just broad response to your other comments I think it makes sense to hear more from WP:PLANTS too. Umimmak (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"lilioid" is supported by the other two cites (one of which I just added, Meerow), not by Christenhusz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned above that you have more comments coming; I'll wait for the rest of them before I reply. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to be clear: I very much want your comments, I just want all of them at once so I can do some research and balance them against what other people have asked for, and hopefully make everyone happy. Case in point: I had "clade" in the first sentence in my last nomination, and another review asked me to remove it to avoid confusing some readers. You wanted to see "grade", so I've put that in, but not in the first sentence ... my guess is that the other reviewer wouldn't object to its current position. Solutions often involve moving words around, and it will help me to come up with solutions if I can see all the comments at once. (Btw, I've got some health problems at the moment, so it might take me a day or two, a few days at worst.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if this article is more about etymology, this should be reflected in the lead now, too.

I thought about that, so I had another look at the 11 previous lists I did on plant etymology, and I made sure that every sentence that appears in the lead of List of plant family names with etymologies also appears in an appropriate place this list ... and they all do. (In fact, only one sentence wasn't already in this list, I added it yesterday, it's in the first note.) My feeling is that the places where these sentences appear now are the best places, but if you really want one or two to also appear in the lead, that can be arranged.

I still sort of think some of the information in footnotes might be better served in the lead (b and e, particularly)

If we're talking about the note about Burmannia, I definitely don't want that in the lead ... I can explain if you like. If we're talking about the "not a clade" business, I'm asking around about that. If we're talking about the rest of Note b, another reviewer asked me to remove it from the lead or move it, and I agreed with that assessment.

... and I still maintain my original comments about further readings: neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.

Point taken, and I've just removed all except for these two references from the further reading section of List of alismatid monocot families (and btw, yes, the plan is to convert that list to an etymology list as well, but let's wait and see how this FLC goes first). But as for the Greek and Latin lexicons: they're staying, they're essential. It might or might not be helpful to see my first list, List of descriptive plant species epithets (I–Z), to see how deeply one of those lexicons (the Latin one) supports the past two centuries of botanical etymology. The Greek lexicon is just as important. See below. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, hopefully more experienced editors provide thoughts as well. Umimmak (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully! Thanks for your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading all this, I'm aware that there's kind of a central point that I've been avoiding, namely: there are good reasons for this almost-a-plant-list to be simpler and less cluttered than normal plants lists. Roughly speaking: in addition to serving other functions, this list is trying to be useful as an introduction to some topics in botany, especially for those readers who find our usual botany articles ... too technical, too forbidding. I'm not saying we can't add anything, it's often possible to keep everyone happy by moving words around ... but I want to make sure that the list doesn't become less readable for readers who are new to botany (but who would like to learn more). - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think authorities for families should be included if they're going to appear as "Amaryllidaceae J.St.-Hil. (onion family)". Authorities are relevant to etymology as they actually coined the name of the family. But that gets complicated in the early history of modern taxonomy; entities that we now call families were sometimes called orders, and the -aceae ending for families wasn't a standard; J.St.-Hil.'s spelling was Amaryllideæ; I have no idea who first used the spelling Amaryllidaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep, it's complicated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak: 1. The "Further reading" section is now gone. 2. I've added a note saying: "The vernacular name is the first thing that appears in each family section in the source, and the order that each family belongs to appears at the top of each page." I hope that deals with your objection about the lack of cites in the first column and the orders column. 3. I'm not sure if your comment about checking with the WP:PLANTS wikiproject is more like "It's always good to check with the wikiproject" or "OMG this stuff is crap, check with the wikiproject". I've had feedback and even supports from people who are respected by the wikiproject, and I'll keep asking, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot. If this is a burning concern, let me know, and I'll email PresN (an FLC delegate) with more detailed information. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you yourself said I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed. so I was just saying that yeah that makes sense to not just listen to me, who again does not have much experience with FLCs for with plant articles on Wikipedia. Honestly the more this is going on the more I'm realizing I'm fully not qualified to give the best possible FLC advice. I said I might have more comments coming, but I'd like to just hear from others on FLC just to make sure I'm not leading you too far astray. But if this is about etymology now, perhaps the talk page should have either {{Etymology section}} or {{WikiProject Linguistics|etymology=yes}} (although again I personally thought this was a stronger article before the focus shifted to etymology, especially given List of plant family names with etymologies, but again I'm just one editor who doesn't have much FLC experience.) Umimmak (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undone ... I remember now that a similar tag or cat was reverted on one of the earlier etymology articles. Okay, the changes that I've made in response to these comments, I've carried over into the other two lists in this series, so I think that covers everything. Agreed with "I'd like to just hear from others" ... and hopefully get some supports, too. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• No issues. There were some minor things but I just went ahead and fixed them

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Checked a few, no issues
• Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much, I'm working on these changes now in the other lists. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put a clause after Lilium candidum in the caption (maybe idenity it as a lily and note its importance in culture), as you do with Vanilla planifolia
• It also may look cleaner if you put them both in a vertical image template, but that's up to you.
  • I'm not good with images in general, but I've generally had to make images free-floating for them to display correctly on mobile devices and in small windows. - Dank (push to talk)
• Should "Lilium" be italicized?
• Maybe put "Liliales, Asparagales, Dioscoreales, Pandanales and Petrosaviales" in alphabetical order
• What are "glandular hairs"? Is there an appropriate link?
• Amaryllis was the name of a mythical Greek shepherdess The Amaryllis says the name is taken from a Greek shepherdess in Virgil's Eclogues. I haven't read the Eclogues (an unread copy is staring at me from my bookshelf as I type this), and I'm not sure if Virgil invented Amaryllis. If he did, she's not really mythological. I'm not sure. I would check and clarify this.
  • That's what some of my sources say, but others say the name comes from mythology ... the only way for both to be true is if the name comes from mythology, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
• For the Global distributions, is Antarctica/the Arctic generally diregarded? Is a note needed in the key? Here is it considered a desert?

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I thought about this, but I was concerned it would get a bit tedious, and maybe also patronizing, to say for virtually all of these families that they don't grow in Antarctica or in sand dunes in the Sahara. But I'll go add a general note saying this in the legend section.
  • Excellent review (if I can review your review). All done except as noted ... feel free to complain :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied. Happy to support. And have a Merry Christmas! ~ HAL333 02:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was merry as soon as I saw your name pop up at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No major issues for me (though I'm far from an expert in this), so I'm happy to support. My only suggestion would be to remove some of the links to specific entries in Glossary of botanical terms and instead link to the specific articles – for instance, Tepal is probably a more useful link than Glossary of botanical terms#tepal. But I think this is a relatively small issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Actually, I'll say it twice: thanks. Happy to have 3 supports on this one, it was starting to feel like it was dragging. This series of lists is meant to be a type of Wikipedia-flavored survey course ... and one thing that's recommended in designing survey courses is to stick to short, non-academic definitions that tell the students roughly what they need to know to understand the material they're reading. I'm really enthusiastic about the approach taken at the glossary ... whoever wrote those definitions made excellent choices. And: for anyone who wants more, the glossary entry is virtually always linked to some main article, so help is just a click away. Does that work for you? (If not, that's fine, let's talk a bit more about survey courses and see if we can find middle ground.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was expressing a personal preference more than anything. The benefit of linking to an article is that it avoids that extra click if it is needed, and a well-written article should still start with a solid definition on the word/phrase. Again, just my 2¢ – there's no one right way to write an article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • RunningTiger, I can reduce the links to the botanical glossary in the next list by adding my own glossary (above the Legend), with terms explained and linked to the main articles. I hope you'll drop by, at least with a drive-by comment, and tell us whether that works for you or not. This particular list is the last in a series of three ... I'd rather not make any big-ish changes at this point without contacting the previous supporters for these three lists, and I've already contacted them a couple of times ... I don't want to get a reputation as a pest (more than I have already :). - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Asphodelus, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Also see the same section in the FLC for the lamiids. This version of the list was soon after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie in his sandbox. Licensing:

• 48 are "own work" with no indication at all that they aren't. 12 licenses were verified by the Flickr bot, 3 by the iNaturalist bot, and 1 by the Panoramio bot.
• File:Vanilla1web.jpg is a US government employee photo.
• The three illustrations are very old; no copyright problems.
• Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is always present, and spare but acceptable.
• Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Only starting to reread. Trivial point: the same terms are linked again and again in the list box. Would link perennial however, and herbaceous in first instance outside the lead.
  • I want to start with a reply about FLC vs. FAC, since you're as familiar with FAC as anyone is, I suspect. At FAC, each new reviewer has the freedom (ideally) to say whatever seems right to them, on the theory that: if other reviewers and nominators care about this stuff, they'll be watching, and if you need them, you can ping them. And anyway, most long-time reviewers will be on the same page on major issues; they've seen it all a hundred times. FLC in general is a bit different; people aren't as invested in the process, and they don't generally hang around, and don't want to keep coming back after they've already supported. The assumption is: after they've had their say and the nom has responded, then things are going to stay more or less the same after that. I could fix the first problem you're bringing up by creating a new section, a glossary ... and in fact I've started doing that already in my new lists (List of basal asterid families for instance). But that change is probably too big to make at FLC after this many supports. I can be more flexible if you jump in as the first or second reviewer on one of the new lists.
  • Okay, so now I can answer your question: I can't do that. FLC rules (and outside FLC, too) say that if a term is linked in one row of a sortable table, it has to be linked in every row where it shows up ... because we don't know how the user will sort, so we don't know which row they'll see first. But I can do this much, per your request: in the glossary at List of basal asterid families, I've just added "perennial". ("herbaceous" was already there.)
  • That makes sense, and yes I do find that am applying FAC criteria on FL, but learning. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Should these article types have a sub-section on the history and basis for the taxonomy, with mention of John Lindley etc? It seems remiss to base a page on their groupings without using their names.
  • Imagine you're on a faculty and you're trying to put together a survey course for, say, a historical period of music. How much of the syllabus would you want to devote to how experts decided to classify the instruments, and who won and who lost these academic battles? It's very important to some readers, and not so much to others. In this list: I'm not absolutely against it, but on balance I think it would be better to handle whatever needs to be said in a note rather than in the main text. Any suggestions?

  How about something like the taxonomies was first grouped by John Lindley in 1830, and includes five orders... Ceoil (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• trivial: Some sections within the "Description and uses" column end in punctuation, some not. eg Rhizomatous herbaceous perennials, with just one or a few leaves clustered at the plant's base[52] - period needed?
  • I just checked the final punctuation on that column again and couldn't find any mistakes. It follows the logic of WP:CAPFRAG for captions ... if it's one sentence fragment, no period; anything more and you need a period.

  Fine, MOS is somethinh i dont really understand, hence of course, why I follow people lile you"! Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• trivial: Nitpicking and out of curiosity, re In Petrosaviales, plants have spirally arranged leaves; can we say "Petrosavial plants have spirally arranged leaves"? Similarly find the "is" in Asparagales is roughly tied...jarring. "are"? Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, there's no word "Petrosavial". I changed this to "Petrosaviales is characterized by includes species with spirally arranged ...". Asparagales: I can't think of a good way to reword this. That's a singular word, and every botanist I've read uses "is" when talking about some property of the order as a whole.

    Realise now its an AM/BR English thing, similar to the "the late 80s Boston alt rock band Pixies are/is"; but it seems espically jarring now here, to my ears. But fine, consider resolved. Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aloevera has widespread use in cosmetics, medicine and food. - are we comfortable that the word "medicine" is not misleading.
  • Good point. I felt this was justified because the source says "on a commericial scale" ... but on second thought, I never want to use the word "medicine" in these lists without mentioning a specific medical compound or use, and the source doesn't give that in this case. Removed.
• The writing, as usual, is very crisp and clear, and the page is a joy to read though. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yours is a joy as well. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My points were quibbles, happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With 1958 having now picked up multiple supports, here's 1959. In this particular year, James Brown, one of the greatest African-American artists of all time, gained his first chart-topper. I'd imagine if you had asked at the time how he felt, he would have replied "I feel good, I knew that I would!" :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Clouds" should sort by "Clouds". (occurs twice)
• I recommend archiving all the references.
• Add abbr template to "Ref." heading in the table. ({{abbr|Ref.|Reference}})

-- EN-Jungwon 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: done apart from the archiving. I don't know how to do that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 02:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "[the chart ranks songs] in African-American-oriented musical genres". That's certainly the history of R&B, for decades, but is it really appropriate in 2022 to say that R&B is oriented towards blacks, or salsa is oriented towards Latinos, or polka is oriented towards old white Midwesterners? Is that normally how we discuss music in 2022? I'd be the last person to know, really, it just seems to me that, if you can find some justification to use past tense, that might be safer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Brown is among a number of the year's chart-topping acts to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in recognition of their success and influence; Wilson, Lloyd Price, the Drifters, Ray Charles, Fats Domino, and the Coasters have also been inducted into the Hall of Fame.": Do you happen to know if there were any other chart-toppers from 1959 who have been inducted? If this is the whole list, then it would be best to drop "among a number".
• One of the Jackie Wilson rows isn't sorting correctly (and you already know about The Clouds).
• "Kansas City" is a double-redirect.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose checks out. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: good point re African-American-oriented musical genres but I can't think of a good alternative - "music of African-American origin"? Is it even that strictly accurate......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought, I don't know if this will work: "Best-selling" isn't precisely the same thing as "Hot", "Soul" isn't precisely the same thing as "R&B" (or Hip-Hop!) ... so even if sources are saying "this is exactly the same chart as the 2022 chart", it really can't be ... not if people generally interpreted the title to mean something different, and they probably did. So you might be able to get away with past tense, as you have in all the R&B lists up to now (I think). Past tense would probably work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dank: had a go at an alternative intro....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "African-American" usually isn't hyphenated. (This is the only real issue I could find.)
• Are "the Spacemen" maybe worthy of a redlink?
• Could we get a contemporary photo of Brown or at least one where he's in his prime? This one from '69 may work if cropped, and this one from '77 isn't bad either. There are a few others, but it's your choice in the end :)

That's all - very clean and well done. It's a shame that I couldn't help with the tail end of those country lists, but I'm glad to see you're still at it. Also, have a Merry Christmas! ~ HAL333 20:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. Points 1 and 3 fixed. Re: point 2, as far as I can see The Spacemen were to all intents and purposes a pseudonym for Sammy Benskin, so I'm not sure it merits a separate redlink..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources appear to be reliable and suitable.
• Could add the page number for Jet
• Spot check on "Lloyd Price Discography": Although not his most successful song, "Personality" would become Price's signature song and lead to the nickname "Mr. Personality" - not supported by the live link, which is to Price's album discography. (Archive link is not working at the moment.)
• Spot check on Jet: "an ensemble led by pianist and bandleader": source has "pianist" and "wrote and recorded", so this feels like a bit of a stretch from that source alone.
• Spot checks on Billboard charts for 1 January and 5 October both fine.
• Spot check on who would go on to become one of the most successful and influential artists in the history of black American music and to be regarded as one of the all-time greats across all genres. - no issues.
• Checked details of the Whitburn books (year, publisher, ISBN) in WorldCat, all fine.
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: - additional sources added for points 3 and 4 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass for source review. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all either PDM or CC. I had no concerns with licensing.
• Images are appropriate, with suitable captions, and positioning is OK. ALT text is provided.

Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Support. Looks good to me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One last list in my brief return to my series of games by 90s/early 2000s developers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard/Relic/Bullfrog/Lionhead), here we have the gameography of Volition. Founded in 1993 as Parallax Software, they hit it out of the park on their first try with Descent, and went on to make a number of good shooter and RPG games – as well as the greatest space combat game ever made, 1999's FreeSpace 2. That's an objective, unbiased fact there. In any case, Volition went on to release the wacky GTA-like Saint's Row in 2006, which did well enough that with a few deviations that's been their main series ever since.

In the background they split the company in half in 1996, with this half renamed Volition and the other being Outrage Entertainment; got bought by THQ in 2000; got picked up out of THQ's bankruptcy by Koch Media in 2012 without half of its IP and merged with publisher Deep Silver (so it's technically the company "Deep Silver Volition", real creative there); and then Embracer Group bought every company and IP I mentioned here, welcome to 2020s capitalism. Despite all these corporate goings-on, Volition itself has for 30 years been sitting in an office building in bustling downtown Champaign, Illinois (population: 88,000), doing their own thing. This list follows the pattern of all the prior lists I've done on games-by-developers, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. --PresN 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: would the fact that SR22 is a reboot of SR06 need an immediate cite? You could just reuse ref #73 here. What about mentioning Del Toro's involvement with Insane? — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @CR4ZE: Done and done. Thanks! --PresN 02:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, thanks for doing that. I don't plan to conduct a full review at this stage but please reach out to me further down the line if this nom is stalling. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There's only one citation in the whole lead, which pops up at random places in two paragraphs. Does this one ref cite the entire lead? If so, would it make more sense to place it at the end of each paragraph?

• Whoops, that's an embarrassing omission - I had sources for the other sentences and they weren't actually added. Fixed!

• "Source code released in 1998, leading to unofficial mods and ports." - don't think that full stop is needed (other, similar notes don't have them)

• Done

• "numerous smaller DLC content" - this reads ever so slightly oddly, as "numerous" implies a plural noun but "content" is singular. Is there a way to reword at all?

• It's worse, because the "C" stands for content- replaced "content" with "pieces"

• "Much of the concept material was used in Red Faction[74][1]" - refs in wrong order

• Done

• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much, all now addressed! --PresN 16:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• From experiments run at TFA, I've come to the conclusion that readers are happier when there's at least one image, and an image can usually be found if you keep looking. For this list, File:Deep Silver Logo.svg would work for me (unless there's another one you prefer).

• Yeah, but while I'd be okay with a Volition or Parallax logo (DSV continues to use the Volition logo), they're non-free, and the Deep Silver one is for a company that was never Volition itself so I think it's misleading.

• "the humor aspects of the game would offset the subject matter": I think I get what you mean, but more careful wording, or even illustrating with an example, would probably be helpful.

• Reworded slightly
  • That works. - Dank (push to talk)

• "... which in turn bought Koch Media in 2018. Since joining Deep Silver, which now serves as its publisher, Volition has grown to over 200 employees and has focused on the Saints Row franchise, producing Saints Row IV (2013)": Read this again and see if something feels off to you about the verb tenses and dates ... if not, then fine, but maybe a tweak or two would help.

• Tweaked, I think it's the jump from past-tense-about-2018 to past-perfect-about-2012 in the next sentence, so I've made the perspective change clearer.
  • That works. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool is marking the YouTube link in red.
• 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, except see above for a request for an image of some kind.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. I'm not entirely sure how the source reviewer will react to the red link link that UPSD is marking in red, so I'll take another look at that time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks, responded inline. --PresN 19:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red for UPSD just means "watch out for this link", as it can't tell context and Youtube is usually an issue. In this case it's a video by Volition, used only to source an uncontroversial fact (how many employees, roughly, did they have at the time), and so should be fine. --PresN 14:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the link. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "producing Saints Row IV (2013) and its stand-alone expansion Saints Row: Gat out of Hell (2015) and the franchise reboot Saints Row (2022)" – seems to be one too many uses of "and" here
• Should Windows and Xbox 360 be linked at their first occurrences?
• Cancellation date for Underground should be cited like the rest
• Really nitpicky: For some reason, the first title in each table is formatted as a table header cell (i.e., gray background and left-aligned text). I think this is related to the sticky header gadget. If you have time, maybe look into why it's doing that, but don't worry too much – it may be something on my browser.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: First 3 done, thanks. The last is definitely the sticky header gadget- turning it on/off makes that happen, but I have no idea what that gadget is trying to do here as it's a normal html table. --PresN 22:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source and image reviews – The article doesn't have any images, so that part is easy as far as reviewing goes. All of the sources seem reliable enough and the link-checker tool indicates that they are in working order. One small formatting issue should be brought up: there is an inconsistency as to whether Deep Silver Volition is italicized. Ref 22 isn't while the rest from that site are. They should be consistent throughout; I'd suggest changing this one for convenience, instead of searching out the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Fixed, though fixed in the sense that it shouldn't have been DSV but Interplay Productions, but it's still not italicized because it's citing the box cover (via cite book), not a website, so Interplay is the publisher, not the website. --PresN 04:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. The source and image reviews have been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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