Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2019

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) 21:31:19 30 July 2019 (UTC) [1].

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my clear obsession with British rock bands is my next song list, this time the rock band Coldplay. Seeing how many of Coldplay's articles are GAs and most of their lists are FLs, seeing this one like this just didn't do it for me. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fix this green link.
• Period missing from alt texts.
• The prose seems fine to me.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks so much! – zmbro _(talk) 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Can you please leave your comments at my ongoing FLC as well? Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "British rock band Coldplay has recorded" - in UK English bands' names are treated as plural, so this should be "British rock band Coldplay have recorded", and you need to ensure you are using plural forms throughout (as indeed you already do in the very next sentence.....)
• "among the best-selling albums in UK chart history." - I don't think the word "chart" is needed here
• "Since their formation, Coldplay credits all of their songs" - plural/single/plural - ugh! :-)
  • Also, the correct tense would be "Coldplay have credited"
• " In the beginning of their career" => "At the beginning...."
• "said to reminiscent " => "said to be reminiscent "
• "X&Y is different than" => "X&Y is different to" (we don't say "different than" in UK English)
• "more stripped-down melancholy style" => "more stripped-down melancholic style" (melancholy is a noun)
• "overarching theme that there's" => "overarching theme that there is"
  • Is that a direct quote (it sounds like one)? If so, it needs to be attributed.
• You don't mention anywhere in the lead that the band have also recorded as "Los Unidades" - you need to explain this, otherwise it's not clear why songs by that "act" suddenly pop up in the table.
• That's what I have spotted in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks for the input! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 15:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• My only comments on the table relate to songs which appear more than once. For example, if "Lost?" is just an acoustic version of "Lost!" and "Lost@" is just a live version then they aren't different songs and therefore don't need to be listed separately. Most bands will have released a live album at some point but I wouldn't expect to see the tracks from it listed separately in a "List of songs recorded by...." article, because they aren't different songs. If they are listed separately here because they have (fractionally) different titles then I think that can be covered by a footnote against the entry for the original song. Similarly you have "How You See the World No. 2" listed, which just seems to be a remix of the song above. Many Coldplay songs have been remixed, so I don't see a compelling reason for this one to be shown here as a separate song. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Yeah you're right I just put them in notes on the originals. That better? – zmbro _(talk) 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: are the following pairs also different mixes/recordings of the same song?

• "Lost!" and "Lost+"
• "Life in Technicolor" and "Life in Technicolor ii"
• "A Message" and "A Message 2010"

ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude "Lost!" and "A Message" are (changed that) but with "Life in Technicolor", "i" is an instrumental that was released on Viva la Vida while "ii" was the vocal version of it that ws released on Prospekt's March; "ii" was also the version released as an actually single (and has its own page on WP), so I think these two warrant a separation. – zmbro _(talk) 21:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds reasonable. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• According to the key, the blue highlights songs that were written or co-written by the band, but its usage in the table seems to indicate it highlights the opposite.

• Cannot believe I never caught that. Supposed to be "not written" – changed.

• This is a question more than anything — the notes that indicate that a song also appears on a different album, wouldn't it make more sense to have them alongside the album name in the songs respective row instead of next to the song itself?

• That's how I've done it for all the other song lists I've brought up to FL.

The lead looks great. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DanielleTH Thanks so much for the comments! :-) – zmbro _(talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns addressed/explained so I support the nom now. I also have a (considerably similar, oddly enough) FLC ongoing if you would like to make comments/criticisms! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! – zmbro _(talk) 15:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing dots in notes. Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter Done. – zmbro _(talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed ; promoting. --PresN 21:31, 30 July 2019 (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) 21:31:22 30 July 2019 (UTC) [2].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 28 of these year-by-year country number ones lists at FL status, so here's what will hopefully be #29, covering a year in which a little-known singer called Garth Brooks spent a single week at number one. I wonder whatever became of him.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The only feedback I have is Ref. needs to be Ref. – Allied45 (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Only comment: "is a chart" -> "is a record chart". Otherwise it looks great. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TBH I don't think it necessary. That sentence says it ranks the top-performing songs, so what other type of chart could it be....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake if you want to link "chart". I truthfully don't think you need to link chart at all as it's common enough knowledge/rather obvious what it does. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 18:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've changed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, happy to support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 02:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (In 1989, 50 different songs topped the chart), I do not think "different" is necessary as it can be assumed from the context.
• The wikilink for "A Woman in Love" leads to the incorrect song. It should be A Woman in Love (Ronnie Milsap song) instead of A Woman in Love.
• For this part (In June Clint Black achieved his first number one), there should be a comma after "June".

Great work with the list Once my comment are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for your comment -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad that I could help. You do awesome work with these lists! If you have the time, I would appreciate any input on my current FAC? Either way, I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not hung around FAC for a long, long time, but I will endeavour to take a look tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not feel pressured to look over it; if you would prefer not to, I would completely understand, as I have turned down requests to look at reviews that I do not feel right for. I am just glad that I could help with this FLC as these lists are always a fun read. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I could not see any issue with this list. Cheers! Damian Vo (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (added archives and formatted isbns); promoting. --PresN 21:31, 30 July 2019 (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) 18:21:13 23 July 2019 (UTC) [3].

Nominator(s): DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 18:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a substantial list that is clear, well-referenced, detailed, and illustrated by images (which have alt text). The list is about South Korean rapper J-Hope and is the only article that lists all his songwriting credits and the writing he's done outside of his band, a major element to his career. I am also doing this as a greater attempt to create high-quality articles about people from non-English backgrounds. Those pages tend to be lacking due to many editors not knowing how to navigate non-English sources and how to format the pages themselves. I used this FL as reference but adapted it somewhat to accommodate the subject.

Some notes: This article largely cites album liner notes which I looked at directly (rather than looking at other sources that claim to cite from them). KOMCA's database is a pain to navigate so I hope those citations are clear enough for them to be suitable. Both Korean-language articles came from news aggregate site Naver which is reliable (see WP:KO/RS).

Thank you in advance to anyone reviewing the list! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 18:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Don't bold his name in the first sentence

Done.

• "the pop and hip hop boy band he belongs to," => "the pop and hip hop boy band of which he is a member," (in two places)

Done.

• "off the album Seo Taiji and Boys IV" => "from the album Seo Taiji and Boys IV"

Done.

• You don't need to put (pictured) in all the photo captions, because the person/people in question is obviously pictured

Done. I kept the (pictured) on Seo Taiji's caption as I don't feel it's clear without it.

• "J-Hope help to write " => "J-Hope helped to write "

Done.

• There are a few places where you list remixes of songs separately. These aren't different songs, so I see no reason for them to be listed separately.

I listed all alternate versions separately if they have different credited writers. For example, the Japanese versions of songs each have an additional credited writer (and in some cases other writers were removed) and the Steve Aoki versions of Mic Drop have multiple additional people. In addition, some Japanese versions and/or remixes were released as singles when their original versions were not, so instead of merging them all with multiple footnotes (especially with Mic Drop, which would need a lot, considering the differences) I listed them separately. I can still do this but I feel like it will make the list much more confusing and hard to use. (I added a note and removed the listing for the remixes where the credits do not change, see Butterfly.)

• "Although credited under BTS, the song is a solo by the listed BTS member" => "Although credited to BTS, the song is a solo track by the listed BTS member"

Done.

• "Though officially credited under BTS, the song is by the duo Sope," => "Though officially credited to BTS, the song is by the duo Sope,"

Done.

• There seem to be a couple of commas missing - I can see "Rap Monster Suga", which makes it look like that is one person

Fixed what I could find.

• What is a "non-commercial release"? I have never seen this term used before and have no idea what it means.

See non-commercial, songs that were released for free, usually through unconventional means, and are not available on any streaming services where the artist receives payment. I can link non-commercial to its Wikipedia page if that makes it clearer, or remove it entirely. They're rather different from normal releases which is why I highlighted them, similar to how some lists highlight promotional singles.

• That's what I found on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to go through the page, ChrisTheDude! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - your comments above make sense, although that whole "non-commercial" thing still confuses me. But then I am old - why can't they go back to just releasing singles on 7" vinyl? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• "for the pop and hip hop boy band of which he is a member, BTS," switch to "for the pop and hip hop boy band BTS, of which he is a member,"
• Add a heading to the table (similar to my Coldplay list you just looked at)

Rest looks good. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 16:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Done. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All good for me. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing that I would suggest are identifiers for the liner notes uses, like ASIN or EAN. See: Template:Cite AV media#Identifiers --Lirim | Talk 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: I can definitely add them, are they located on the booklets themselves? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 03:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For e.x.; EAN can be found here [4], just scroll down to "Discographie Alben - Studio", where all albums are listed. Just click on the album and above the track list are two EAN numbers, one for CD's and one for Digital, use the CD one. 2 Cool 4 Skool |id={{EAN|8804775049590}}---Lirim | Talk 04:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirim.Z: Done.

Support: Did some ref correction.--Lirim | Talk 22:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed- the cite templates are complaining that you put data in "|other" without anything in "|author", but that's obscure and trivial so I'm not going to fix it or ask for it to be fixed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 23 July 2019 (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) 18:21:16 23 July 2019 (UTC) [5].

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list comprises all of the screw corvettes built by Germany from the 1860s through the 1880s, which had varied and (I think!) interesting careers - some saw action in the Wars of German Unification while the later vessels were frequently used to police the German colonial empire; a couple were sunk in storms, and most of the rest were eventually scrapped - only Blücher's fate remains a mystery; what happened to the vessel after being sold in 1909 has apparently been lost to history. In any event, thanks to those who take the time to review the list. I should add that the list serves as the capstone to this project I assembled last year. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "a role that many of the older corvettes had begun to serve in by that time" - don't think the word "in" is needed here
  • Removed, and switched "serve" to "fill" to avoid repeating it in the same sentence.
• "two of which were taken as prizes and the third being sunk" - the word "being" isn't needed here
  • Removed
• "but not badly damaged by a Danish frigate." - slightly confusing wording. Does this mean that she was attacked by a frigate but only lightly damaged? Or that she was badly damaged but by something else? The wording is ambiguous.
  • That's a good point - I've hopefully reworded it for better clarity.
• Only looked as far down as the Nymphe class so far, will pop back for more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Chris, I'll wait for more. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• " They had a displacement of more than a thousand tons lower than the earlier vessels" - I think this should probably be " They had a displacement of more than a thousand tons less than the earlier vessels"
  • Fixed, thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it for the rest of the article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list is in great shape. I reviewed it at Milhist ACR and checked it against the individual ship and class articles, so there isn't much to add now. I have a few comments:

• link keel laying in the lead
  • Done
• link Squadron (naval) in the lead
  • Done
• in the lead, suggest "Nymphe's sister Medusa was in Japan..." as I am left wondering what class she came from
  • Good idea
• in the lead and Ariadne class section, you could probably get away with delinking Mediterranean Sea, although it is lineball in terms of common knowledge IMO
  • Yeah, that one is sort of on the borderline, but my rule of thumb is to err on the side of assuming the average reader won't know a given place (but maybe I've just seen too many late night bits making fun of people who couldn't identify US states)
• in the lead, suggest "later the construction"→"later the establishment"
  • Sounds good to me
• in the lead, suggest "and the 'Bismarck-class ship Gneisenau" for the same reason as above
  • Good idea
• Under Nymphe class, they are referred to as steam corvettes, but aren't these ships screw corvettes? Suggest consistent terminology
  • Good catch - the terms are mostly interchangeable (apart from the inclusion of
• is there a link for cruiser in "traditional cruiser duties"?
  • Probably the generic cruiser article is the best bet
• "while under the French flag"
  • Good catch
• link Haiti at first mention
  • I think the MoS advises against linking to current countries
• link ship commissioning for decommissioning
  • Done
• Have you gone with a policy of not linking ship names in the body (outside the tables)? Otherwise there are a few that should be linked at first mention
  • Yeah, I figure linking in the prose in addition to the tables would be overkill
• you could link "show the flag" to the wiktionary entry as it is a bit obscure
  • It's linked in the Nymphe section
• under Charlotte "and hulked; her ultimate fate is unknown" but the table says broken up, 1921?
  • Good catch, fixed the table

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I claim my seat here. Tomorrow I will have look at it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• response to rising tensions with Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein Question Link Denmark.
  • I think per the MoS, linking to existing countries is to be a avoided
• Medusa was blockaded in Yokohama, Japan Link Japan with the Empire of Japan's article.
  • Done
• The ships were purportedly being built for Japan under the Link Japan here with the Tokugawa shogunate's article.
  • Done
• Link France in the lead and body with the Second French Empire's article.
  • Done
• "1 shaft, 1 marine steam engine, 13.5 knots (25.0 km/h; 15.5 mph)" extra nought isn't necessary.
  • Had to hard code it in
• Don't forget to link tonnes and long tons in the article.
  • Good catch

That's anything from me. CPA-5 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome mate, here's my support. Hopefully one day all those lists are FA-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (I did remove the use of Amazon ids from the two books that had them, ASIN (Amazon Standard ID) is not a global standard but solely an internal reference number for a single retailer); promoting. --PresN 18:21, 23 July 2019 (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) 18:21:19 23 July 2019 (UTC) [6].

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "As of February 2019, there are 26 LNRs in East Sussex" - update? We'll be in June next week

• Updated to May. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "therefore making it the 28th largest ceremonial county in the United Kingdom" - the linked article says 33rd largest. Which is correct?

• Not sure what I did here or whether I kept an old edit. I have deleted the comparison and provided new sources for area and population. The population estimate is much lower than shown elsewhere on Wikipedia (552,000 compared with 840,000) but I have gone with the figure shown by the County Council. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This site has ancient woodland and species rich unimproved grassland" - I think "species rich" should have a hyphen (as indeed it does later on, I have just noticed).

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the review ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ChrisTheDude. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – links are good, alt text is there, everything looks great. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 14:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Zmbro. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Local nature reserve is a common noun, and the title of this and the rest should be moved to match List of local nature reserves in Greater London and List of local nature reserves in Somerset.

• This has been raised several times before. Local Nature Reserve is not a common noun but an official designation under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It is one grade down from Site of Special Scientific Interest. Wikipedia is inconsistent whether official designations are capitalised, but in my view capitalisation is correct in order to signal to the reader that the term is a legal desigation, not a descriptive phrase. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Act never once uses the phrase "Local Nature Reserve" and "nature reserve" is always lowercase. This government page does not use capital letters. "Legal designation" is not a reason listed at Capitalization. I encountered this with List of national parks of the United States (legal designations described here) and it is quite clear that when discussing these collectively it's common, only proper when referring to a specific site.

• The official Natural England site at [7] uses capitalisation for Site of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserve. They are designations and no one, including you in your review of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Surrey/archive1, has suggested lower case for SSSIs. We need to be consistent and in my view capitalisation is correct, as I said above, to signal to the reader that the phrase is an official designation, not a description. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• scheduled monument is also a common noun

• Schdeduled Monument is an official designation under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, not a common noun. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet this act does not ever capitalize "scheduled monument". The article itself and Historic England do not agree with this. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I accept that the argument for capitalisation is weaker here as the official site does not capitalise, but I think we need to be consistent and for the reasons above it is better to capitalise. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• byelaws is not hyphenated Reywas92^Talk 06:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review Reywas92. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your further comments Reywas92. There are obviously arguments on both sides and we may have to agree to disagree on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 23 July 2019 (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) 18:21:10 23 July 2019 (UTC) [8].

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because —  I've worked on this list for quite some time and I think it meets the criteria. I got it copy edited by two editors on Guild of Copy Editors (thank you both). I thought someone may argue that it could be reasonably included in Dzongkhag page but Dzongkhags have much richer history than what is mentioned in current version of the page. If I merge it now, it'll have to be separated some time in future when Dzongkhag article develops further. Regards, TryKid (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see much to pick up on this one, other than:
  • I think you should combine the content of the lead into a smaller number of longer paragraphs as opposed to five pretty short ones
  • Our article on Chhukha doesn't have the double H - which is correct? If both are valid then cover it with a footnote as you have done elsewhere
  • Similarly the title of our article on Lhuentse is spelt differently
  • ....and Pema Gatshel
  • In the first note, don't use a contraction ("they're") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs). I've fixed all five issues. Put notes for three dzongkhags spelled differently, fixed the contraction and merged the middle three paragraphs into one. Thank you very much for the review. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Like Chris, I don't think there's anything major. The only thing I can think of is the lead image seems a little big but that's just me. Great job on this! – zmbro _(talk) 21:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro:, thank you very for the review Zmbro. I'm very grateful. I realize this is very late, but better late than never. Regards, TryKid (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattximus (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree that it should be included into the Dzongkhag article, but I will review just as a list:
• Try not to use unencyclopedic words like "sandwiched" which can be difficult for people who don't know what sandwhiches are to understand.

Done.

• The third sentence seems odd, since Bhutan is made of Dzongkhags, "shouldn't eastern slopes of the Himalayas in South Asia" apply first to Bhutan, perhaps in the previous sentence? Maybe something like: "Bhutan is located between the Tibet Autonomous Region of China and India on eastern slopes of the Himalayas in South Asia".

Done. Copied your words. Maybe I should change it to "The 20 contiguous dzongkhags of Bhutan are located in....." What do you suggest?

Only if there are non-contiguous dzongkhags... otherwise that word does not make sense.

• " (as of the 2017 census)" can be taken out of brackets and moved to the front of that sentence since it applies to both populations.

Done.

• In the first sentence of the last paragraph you should mention that Thimphu is the national capital.

Thimphu city is the capital, but not Thimphu dzongkhag.

• A citation is needed for each of the 3 statements (most populous, largest, and highest population density).

All citations in the table. It shouldn't need to be cited twice. I've based everything on List of states and territories of the United States.

I still think you need the source at least at the end of the paragraph if it contains information from all three sentences.

Done. Cited the census.

• Subheading should not be called "list", but "List of Dzongkhags" or just "Dzongkhags"

Done.

• Current featured list standards remove any sentence that is tautological, for example "this list..." "this table"... so the sentence "The table below lists the 20 dzongkhags with their population, population density, area data,[B] and number of National Assembly representatives.[C]" Should be removed. However, the census date should be placed in the population column header, and the note C should be maintained but also placed in the column header.

Again, I based it on FL List of states and territories of the United States. But I'll remove it and do as you wish. Done.

This list is out of date and is due for a once over. A good model would be List of municipalities in Alberta which was not made by me, but acted as the model for all of my similar lists. It is more modern and up to current featured list standards.

• I don't think there should be a subcolumn for ISO numbers. These are not useful at all for general readership. Simply calling that column Name would be much better.

Same as above. This time, I don't think they should be removed. The ISO everything looks pretty "professional" and doesn't take that much space. Shouldn't be a reason to oppose.

This one I think you should reconsider. Remember our readers, not one in a thousand would even know what the ISO code means or does, and serves no real function unless under extreme niche conditions. A better column would be the 2005 population and a population change column like the Cantons of Costa Rica article that you mentioned above. That would indicate to readers if the dzongkhag is growing, shrinking or stable in population. If you would like I can make this column for you. I can do it very quickly.

If you can do it more efficiently, then it'll great. Thank you so much for not only the review but the help as well.

What do you think of this new table? I added a total row as well as a change column. I also formatted the land area to use nts formatting.

Much better. Thanks for this.

• Population column should not have note, but actual date in brackets.

Done. But now it says 2017 census both in brackets and in efn. Any suggestions?

Removed census, so now it's just date.

• Does area mean "land area"? or "total area"? The first excludes lakes and other water bodies.

Well, like the efn says, All data from 2017 census. The census report makes no distinction. What do you suggest I should do?

Usually this is a big deal since lakes can significantly change not only the area figure but the population density as well. The document you cited says "It is the ratio of the total population of a given area to the total land area expressed in square kilometres " and cites again that it is not total area but land area. This column header should be changed to say that and the problem is solved.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I changed it to say total land area (km²).

• Citation 8 is a dead link and is the basis of all the information on the page. This is critical to fix.

Done. Very weird, the original link worked while the archive was dead. A previous archive works perfectly though.

• I would recommend labeling the population density column simply "Population density" and use the "Pop density" template for each population density so the units are present in the table itself. This will make the table look less strange since now it's the largest column for the smallest numbers.

Done.

I think you should respect the original source and round the pop density to 0 decimal places. This can be done with the prec=0 part of the pop density template.

In PHCB's first chapter, on page 16, there's a population density map that states the population density to one decimal place. I've decided to round it to one demical place in the table too. Text replace tool came very handy for this. I think rounding to two decimal places would be even better. What do you suggest?

• Other spellings should have a reference for each one.

Name spellings shouldn't need references, I think all of them are already present in their respective articles. If not, I'll put them with a source in their articles. Is that good enough or do I need to make this "Done" too?

Are the alternative spellings found in that large source #8? If so you can use that reference for all the names.

I'll add news articles that use alternative spellings as citations. Should be done by the time you see this.

• I think that this page could use an image for the several of the most popular Dzongkhags, either justified right of the table, or in a gallery between the subheading.

Copyright free images of Bhutan are hard to come by. This shouldn't be a big reason to oppose.

Surely there is at least one nice one of Thimphu? Maybe something like this: [File:View_of_Tashichodzong_from_the_NE.jpg]

I've added some images but I can't seem to get it right like it is in Cantons article. It'll be great if you can change it to look better. Images from commons:Bhutan.

I see you took the approach I've used on my pages with the gallery, however in this case, due to the lack of images, I think a subtle one on the right is better. What do you think?

Looks good. I'm fine with your improvements. I consider this done. It'll be great if you strike it out.

I will strike it out since there is at least 1 image, but there should be more pictures from some of the other Dzongkhags somewhere...

commons:Bhutan has some of Paro as well.....

• Is there any administrative purpose of zones in Bhutan? Do they serve any function? If so, they should be added in a column. They are divided this way in the template at the bottom of the page. If they serve no function, then I can see reason to leave them off. If they are added, their function should be mentioned in the lead.

Zones went defunct in before the start of the century I think. Democratisation and the Local Government Act sealed the deal. Zones are useless now.

• The map has the German spelling for India, this is an easy fix since you can just copy the A from china in paint or some other program and the image would be English. I can do this later this week if you do not know how. But it should be changed before promotion.

@Mattximus: The image is a vector image, you can just copy the code, paste it in a txt file, search for INDIEN and replace EN with A in the text file. Replace the .txt with .svg in filename and it'll be done. Re-upload the SVG file with same name as current one but with en instead of de. I think you're familiar with uploading images on commons, placing categories, templates and putting that new map is derivative of TUBS German map. Since I don't own a computer (I edit from my phone, sometimes putting desktop mode to see how it'll look on a computer), I couldn't do it myself. To extract SVG code, click on "original SVG file" on file page on commons. You'll see a page with embedded image and nothing else. Now, open page source and copy everything to a txt file. Or just ask someone who's familiar with the process like TUBS himself. He could do it all in seconds probably. TryKid (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've asked commons:User:TUBS for help. I think he'll be able to do it. Regards, TryKid (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work so far! I'm leaning oppose for now, since there is quite a bit of work needed to bring this page up to standard. But I'm happy to review again when changes have been addressed. 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mattximus, I've done what I could do, but I think I need further comments. Thank you very much for the review. TryKid (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: sorry messed up the previous ping. See above. TryKid (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Images of Bhutan are easy to come by but I have no idea what to use. Maybe something similar to Cantons of Costa Rica made by you. But I can't find good quality photos of most populated (or most anything) dzongkhags. Maybe pictures of Dzongs of some dzongkhags? It'll be great if you can suggest something. Regards, TryKid (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work so far with the comments but there is still a bit more to go before I can support the page. Mattximus (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, I've done further improvements. Please check it out. Regards, TryKid (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've been trying to run IA Bot in this page to archive the new references but IA Bot isn't working for some reason. IABot. You try to use it too and if it doesn't for you too, tell me and I'll manually archive all links. TryKid (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 issue (German map) left. Regards, TryKid (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Further comments above. Any reason for not adding total number of National Assembly constituencies (47) in the last column titled "Bhutan"? TryKid (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, good idea! Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Trying to get hold of graphic guys is hard. Most of the people who designed these maps are inactive. Graphics village pump on commons is very inactive too. I don't really know ins and outs of commons so it's probably needlessly hard for me, but this is going to be a great learning experience. TryKid (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for someone to do free work for this article, @Mattximus:, I've to ask something. Do you think I should italicise the word "dzongkhag" in the title? And which one of the following is better:-
The word dzongkhag translates to district. In English uses, specific Dzongkha words, including the word dzongkhag, are italicised and only translated the first time they are used.
or
The word "dzongkhag" translates to "district". In English uses, specific Dzongkha words, including the word "dzongkhag", are italicised and only translated the first time they are used.
Regards, TryKid (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mattximus:! Got your last comment resolved too! German map replaced with English one by NordNordWest. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All comments resolved, and the page looks much better! However I am becoming convinced of Reywas92's argument. This list can be merged into Dzongkhag and that can be an excellent article. I'm not sure if it then counts as an article or list, but if it's a list, it will need renomination. I would be happy to review and likely support this new merged page. It doesn't really make sense to have a bullet point form list in Dzongkhag and the table in List of dzongkhags of Bhutan when the latter can replace the former significantly improving the page. Mattximus (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• To your last question there, I would italicize the word for the first usage only, and without quotation marks, per the current footnote format. No need to italicize the title. The translation part could be ("district" in Dzongkha).
• However, the article should be titled List of districts of Bhutan. If this is a word that means "district" in the local language, it would not be appropriate to use a foreign language word in the English Wikipedia. E.g. we have States of Germany not Bundesländer of Germany and Provinces of Nepal not Pradeshaharu. Dzongkhag should likewise be Districts of Bhutan.
• But the two pages should in fact be merged to the latter name – Even if more information can be told about their history, this list/table is certainly short enough that there would not be a need for separate pages regardless of if more content is added. Looking through List of administrative divisions by country, the US appears to be the only country with both a list and a topic article, and most countries' lists manage to have both a table and prose with historical content. Therefore I must unfortunately oppose this under criterion 3c. It does not serve the reader to have this content split across multiple pages, nor would it even when there is additional history. I'd rather that be split to a "History of districts of Bhutan" if necessary; see the other FLs at Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Miscellaneous_10 like Counties of Romania. Reywas92^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the first point. Dzongkhag is bit different from Pradeshaharu and Bundesländer. In its English documents, Nepal and Germany probably don't use the native terms. But in nearly every Bhutanese document, the word "District" is used only at either the last or first pages and that too to just indicate what dzongkhag actually means. Nobody really uses "District" to denote the first level administrative divisions of Bhutan, even in English uses. District is pretty much just a loose translation and nearest thing available to what dzongkhag actually means. About the second point. Yes. You're probably right. I see that now. This can probably be moved to Dzongkhags of Bhutan or just replace Dzongkhag with this, whichever is better. And add a political structure section, like Cantons of Costa Rica. The question is: Does this FLC gets failed because of the move and I have to renominate it and repeat all this or we just keep going after the move? I hope it's not the fail option. Even after the move, it'll stay a list article, after all. Failing because page move sounds too bureaucratic. I wonder if FACBot is going to be confused because of all the page moves. Finally, pinging @Reywas92:. Regards, TryKid (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's English-language Constitution actually does use Land and Länder throughout, as I would expect for government documents. I see how within the country people would still use the native term, but outside it makes sense to use English, as the article was called before it was moved (and there's still Category:Districts of Bhutan). "Districts of Bhutan" gets plenty of Google results, as do the likes of "Bumthang District", and the Daily Bhutan uses district (though also dzongkhag). I don't think you'd have to start a new FLC for it, depends on the amount of content the list gains if you're ready. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, are you proposing a new page merging Dzongkhag and List of dzongkhags of Bhutan into a new page called Districts of Bhutan? If so, I also think that would work, but I'm sure this would require TryKid to create a new nomination, no? Mattximus (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the most consistent with naming conventions (which was also the name of the list prior to this month). Not sure about the rules around a moved nomination, but it's really not a big deal if it has to be a new one. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had moved it from Districts of Bhutan to here. But now it seems that the previous name was better. It still think it shouldn't be called Districts but we'll that later. So, first I move it back to Districts of Bhutan, then merge Dzongkhag page into Districts of Bhutan and that shouldn't change this nomination, right? I'll start by Dzongkhag into this article and then moving it to Districts of Bhutan. I hope that sounds right. TryKid (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Mattximus (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. @Mattximus:, can you check it it even qualifies as a list now and review the new additions? You can move it to your desirable title as you see fit. Also @Reywas92:. Regards, TryKid (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I did it myself. I hope the review isn't effected by this. TryKid (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, can you review the new changes? And maybe support if it's good enough? TryKid (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text does need a bit of a copy edit, but I can do a review next week. I think for a start, the first paragraph of the history should be better sourced, instead of just having 2 citations at the end. Looking at it now, it was a good idea to merge them, this is a much better page already. Mattximus (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, can you also review the new changes? TryKid (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mattximus's comments but you've made good improvements already. I don't have time to do a source review yet but it looks good.

• • The Provinces of Bhutan should be mentioned somehow, likely in the History section. I see that they ended in 1907, but briefly mention that that transitioned to the unitary state then and then when the districts were established. The map says Districts of Bhutan, 1987–1992, but neither of those years are mentioned for their relevance in the local government organization. Does that mean the current boundaries in the main map were established in 1992? What about the period of 1981 to 1987, was that just a development phase?
  • Rather than "20 dzongkhags (transl. districts)" use the more consistent format of "20 districts (Dzongkha: dzonghags)". For the later translations, the "transl." isn't really necessary, it's implied that it's the English meaning. Reywas92^Talk 20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, I've done what I could for provinces. About the map: So, either I can remove the map or add this questionable paragraph — "In August 1987, the territory of Gasa dzongkhag was divided between Punakha and Thimphu; Chhukha dzongkhag was formed by merging the parts of Samtse, Paro, and Thimphu.^[1][2] In 1992, Gasa dzongkhag was re-established and carved out from Punakha; the same year, Trashi Yangtse dzongkhag was carved out from Trashigang.^[1][2]". Your call. About the last point, I think that the templates look better. I can remove them if you insist, but personally, I think it looks better with them. Regards, TryKid (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the templates. Anything else?

• That sounds like a good way to put it, though yeah the source isn't the best but has other good information, could be hard to find a better one though depending on how well you speak Dzongkha. I'm still not clear by the line "with the formation of a dzongkhag yargye tshogchung ("DYT", district development committee) in each dzongkhag" since it hasn't been said when each dzongkhag was created and the provinces were abolished – was it during this "process of decentralisation of local administration" in 1981 or before? This source says 1991...

Yeah, I've no idea when dzongkhags were created. Probably with the DYT. Previous version of page mentioned 1959 but without any sources. The site you linked copies stuff from Country studies: Nepal and Bhutan. It's available in Library of Congress, in public domain. It merely states what was the situation in 1991, not that the zones and districts were created in 1991.

• The source also provides capitals of the districts – this certainly seems worth including and linking to these cities. (and are the districts simply named after their capitals?) It was in the the older version of the article.

The information given seems to be wrong. Dzongkhags don't have capitals. Someone named the capitals after the dzongkhags it seems. Dzongkhag administration is run from dzongs (castles). It can be said that the location of the castle is the capital of the dzongkhag, but there are problems with that too. All in all, not adding captials will be good for the articles.

• That version also mentions zones (dzongdey): It's not clear if these are official administrative divisions or simply unofficial geographic groupings but the constitution says there are nine provinces. [9] says the zones are defunct so if you agree it would make sense not to include them but I'm wondering what led you to remove them. Someone made articles for them (eg Central Dzongdey) that includes a map, though those should probably be redirected here with a mention in the history.

The Constitution you linked is draft constitution and it's outdated. Penlop (provincial lord) posts still exist but they are appointed by the king. Provinces are totally defunct though. There isn't a particular date for when everything went defunct, it seems to have happened slowly. Yeah, a small mention of zones will make sense I guess, I'll add it. The second site (country-data) you linked seemed to use familiar wording. Turns out it's from Library of Congress country studies of Nepal and Bhutan, published in 1991.

• That version and Bhutan#Political_divisions gives the Dzongkha name as well, could be worth including. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I talked about it in the talk page, I don't think adding native spellings are anything more than trivia though.

I'll ping you when I complete these. I'm working on it. TryKid (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, I believe that I've addressed the issues. Anything that I may have missed? TryKid (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Reywas92:! Mattximus has completed his review. I believe that I've also resolved the comments you presented. Can you provide any further comments in case I missed something? TryKid (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was out all of yesterday, you don't need to ping me again right away... Thanks for your responses to my questions, that covers it pretty well though I'm still bothered that we don't know even when the dzongkhags were established. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Bhutan isn't active and finding a Dzongkha speaker may be difficult but it would be nice to have someone who knows this first-hand take a look. Otherwise the history seems good for the sources available with good description of the current status and list, so I can support. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested CFynn to take a look, but he's a busy man. He has quite a lot of experience with these topics, he has worked with the Bhutanese government to design fonts and other stuff. TryKid (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book that may be useful if you can see enough by trying various search terms: https://books.google.com/books?id=qyRXAAAAMAAJ&dq=dzongkhags+established&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=dzongkhags Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments round 2

• The English/Dzongkha translations are a bit messy, and some consistency should be applied. The opening sentence should read "20 districts (Dzongkha: dzongkhag)" since the page is now called districts. The note itself should be cleaned up since it doesn't make grammatical sense, or simply removed (this is probably the best option).

I'll remove it then.

Much better but the first dzongkhags should be italicized.

Done.

• should penlop be italicized and followed by (governor)?

Done.

• "(centered in present-day Bumthang)" should be removed because it looks strange to qualify only one of the provinces.

Done.

• What is a "Provincial lord"? Is that the same as penlop? In which case the above should read penlop (provincial lord).

Done.

• Druk Gyalpo needs to be italicized

Done.

• The sentence "in each dzongkhag" doesn't make sense, because you say "Before the country was reorganized into dzongkhags", so how can it happen in a dzongkhag without there being any dzongkhags yet?

So, it isn't clear when the dzongkhags were established. But it was somewhere between the establishment of House of Wangchuck and DYT. Maybe with the DYT.

As long as this sentence is accurate, it's much better.

• Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogdu Chathrim needs to be italicized and translated in brackets.

@CFynn:, can you help with all the translations? And maybe with the issue just above this one? Done.

• Same with dungpa, thromdes

done.

• gup and the mangmi needs translation and differentiation

Done.

"Dzongkhag tshogdu are tasked with balancing socio-economic development, promoting business, protecting consumers, coordinating government agency activities reviewing gewog regulations and ordinances, and representing the dzongkhag in national referenda" needs a reference

Yeah I'll reword it to match the LGA09. Page 13 of LGA09. LGA09 is already cited. I see. Should I remove this? I can't find any sources for it. Removed it since I can't find anything.

It's a good sentence, just needs a reference. Is there any way to find out where this is originally from?

It seems to be mostly a synthesis of different parts of LGA09, everything mentioned in there can be found somewhere in LGA09, it's all on different pages. Should I do cite every point individually? Or the LGA09 cite at the end will do?

• citation #1 is incomplete, as is 9, 10, 11

Not incomplete. See how Franz Kafka is using references for example and WP:INCITE. If you click on the link, it'll lead to the full reference. It's Harvard style or something. It looked like a good way to add multiple citations from one book, so I added it, but now that you're asking to remove first efn, it probably won't be needed for the first book.

Oh I see, I think you should just write it twice, since there are only 2 instances. I think that alternative citation method is for when a specific text is referred to many many times. That should fix the next comment too.

Done. This solves the issue below too.

• I'm not sure why there is a "sources" subheading. If these documents are cited in the text they should be considered references.

Same as above.

Mattximus (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to solve some issues, but I need some time, I'll ping you once everything is done with the issues you mentioned. TryKid (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good! Just a few more comments then I'll read it once more then we should be done. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, made some improvements, further comments? TryKid (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, I've added and removed some stuff. Any comments? TryKid (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very close to finishing my review:

• "Each dzongkhag has its own elected local government " do you mean just "government", since there are local governments within a dzongkhag correct?
• First instance of thromde needs a translation, you have it on the second.

• Ok that's it just more comments then the review is complete from my end. Mattximus (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus:, I believe that I've resolved both issues. TryKid (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph of the lead, I've changed the number of residents from rounded to exact, if this was not a correct move, you can revert it. TryKid (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that works, great job! Support Mattximus (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments and review Mattximus. I'm very grateful. TryKid (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, @Mattximus:. Following conversations is getting harder, so I'm replying to the unsolved issues here at the bottom of the page. You can reply here. Or just at the above thread if you think that'll be better/easier to follow. Thank you.

• The only big issue remaining is the establishment date of dzongkhags. There seems to be no information on when dzongkhags were created. I've tried to "tape" this issue by adding "newly created" before "dzongkhag". Maybe you guys can suggest a better wording. The Shivakoti ref says dzongkhags were created in 1981 but it also says that all 20 dzongkhags were created in 1981. The second statement seems to be false, as the Statoids website says that dzongkhags were split up to get to the current number of 20. So, I wouldn't trust it enough to add that dzongkhags were created in 1981.
• I've removed the historical dzongkhag map and replaced it with a dzongdey map and added a paragraph about it. The paragraph doesn't seem to be very good to me, you can make any changes in it to make it better. Is the Constitution and the LGA09 strong enough source to say that zones went defunct? Or do I need a source specifically saying that "zones went defunct"? Edit: I'm colourblind so I'm unable to add a legend to the dzongdey map. Can someone add one to the image? Here's a guide: "Zone I, including four western districts, seated at Chhukha; Zone II, including four west-central districts, seated at Damphu; Zone III, in-cluding four east-central districts, seated at Geylegphug; and Zone IV, including five eastern districts, seated at Yonphula." From the LOC study. That paragraph should be added to the article. Will add it. added legend with a image colour picker website. added the paragraph.
• Other issues that I may have missed:

I'm removing the names and number of provinces since it's so suspect. I cannot find any reliable source supporting it. The given source on Google Books is set to "no preview". And when I search "Byakar", one of the given province name, using the feature that lets you search up something on a book even if it's no preview, I gives no results. I'll probably also replace the given source with something more accessible. TryKid (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryKid (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Content that comes from the government of Bhutan is acceptable for this list. Kuensel is the national paper of Bhutan and has journalistic standards. Text sources have reliable publishers; Europa Publications is part of Routledge. The Library of Congress is also reliable. Sourcing is consistent, support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for temporarily striking my support, TryKid, but I raised a concern and happened to put it on the wrong FLC. My one concern is that there is no clear indication about where the 2005 data is sourced from. That's the only issue I can find, so if that's fixed I can return it to support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH:, it is sourced from the same PHCB2017 page 102. That page has a table bit similar to one on this page. Contains 2005 data too. I've cited PHCB2017 again there too. I can cite 2005 census again if you really want it, I probably will after this reply is done. But the 2017PHCB is good enough too. Regards, TryKid (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: Great, returned my support. The 2017 data is acceptable, my only concern was that there was no source listed on the column. Great work on the list! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been two weeks since a source review, can this be closed (as promoted, hopefully?) now? TryKid (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, with one date fix made; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 23 July 2019 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 11:41:13 22 July 2019 (UTC) [10].

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a pet project for me in creating a Welsh Premier League list and attempting to take it to FL. The list is for the winners of the Golden Boot, for the top goalscorer each season and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "before being rebranded as the Welsh Premier League in 2002" - this isn't mentioned (or sourced) in the body of the article
• "on 6 Janu2 1993" - think something's gone a bit awry there ;-)
• "Eifion Williams' won the Golden Boot" - stray apostrophe there
• "Eifion Williams goals-per-game ratio" - ah, this is where that apostrophe was meant to be ;-)
• "In 2004, the award was won by Andy Moran of Rhyl however, he" - comma should be before "however", not after
• "Griffiths' last win, during the 2011–12 season remains" - needs a comma after "season"
• Chris Summers link in the table points to a dab page
• Think that's it from me. Just little tweaks needed. Shame we don't have pictures of any of the players concerned.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks Chris for your review, I believe I've addressed all of the issues. The lack of images is a shame, I spent sometime trawling through Flickr in the hope of finding something but no luck. Kosack (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I know it's in the infobox and main prose, but it might be nice to indicate the first year of the award in the lead. Something like this addition: "The award was created in 1993 for the inaugural season of the competition..."
• "outscoring his nearest competitor Andy Cole in the English Premier League by nine goals." Place commas after "competitor" and "League".
• "The award was subsequently given to the second highest scorer..." Make it "second-highest" with a hyphen.
• Change the Ref(s) column heading to {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}} (which looks like this: Ref(s) ).
• According to the "Awards won by club table", the award has been issued 29 times, not the 27 times indicated elsewhere.
• Refs 2, 4, & 10 (for example) are in sentence case, but refs 3, 5, & 6 (for example) are in title case. Chose one format and apply the same style to each (sentence case seems to be the most prevalent here).
• Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: Thanks for your review, I've fixed all of the issues raised above. A quick note to yourself and Chris The Dude, I've managed to secure an image from a Flickr user now in case either of you want to include it in your reviews, cheers. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: The above changes look good. Regarding the image, it needs alt text with the |alt= field and a period at the end the full sentence caption. One more thing I noticed, the "Awarded for" description immediately below it does not need a period as it is not a complete sentence. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NatureBoyMD: Fixed those two issues now, cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job to you! Care to check out my FLC? – zmbro _(talk) 21:32, 17 June 2019 (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) 23:05:22 14 July 2019 (UTC) [11].

Nominator(s): PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a complete break from my usual video game-by-company or scifi award lists, as well as my usual editing, a couple weeks ago I decided to start a new project and build up a taxonomic list article instead. I pulled the data into a file, wrote a program to build wikitables out of it, and here's the result: List of felids, a list of all 41 species in the Felidae family, otherwise known as "cats". I based the format on the relatively recent FLs List of parrots and List of fruit bats, and the taxonomic structure on the thankfully recent IUCN classification update, like our articles (mostly) do. I got some small but positive feedback from people who work more often in the biology area, so I'm hoping that this FLC will be a good proving for what I hope to turn into a series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love these animal lists! A few thoughts:

• What is the purpose of the colored boxes? I see the fruit bats list uses them to distinguish the taxonomic levels, but this uses a purple instead of teal for genus, in case they were selected for a reason. I think the framing around the entire table is a bit much and the format at List of cetacean species is a lot cleaner.

• Now unframed. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the sources for the species table itself? A couple general sources would be fine but they need to be specified. "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" looks like it but mark it somewhere that it's for the whole table and not just the in-line use.

• Added an explicit heading that calls out the source. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The other articles all have the genus name, describer name/year, and number of species in the same line. You know I'm a fan of consistency, so consider using the same format here.

• Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Since "conservation dependent" is a deprecated category, it does not need to be listed in the IUCN key.

• Done. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be willing to add additional informational columns? The cetacean list has population and size, and I think both of those would be useful here since many felines are endangered and they represent a range of sizes.

• Redid columns; added one with size, habitat, and hunting info, and add population counts to the IUCN status column. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically the only articles that link here are the others in the Mammal species navbox – not even Felidae links here! You should advertise your fine work by adding links to eg Felis and perhaps Template:Carnivora if there's a good spot on that.

• Discussion ongoing at Talk:Felidae. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the above two because this should actually serve a unique purpose – we got by fine without this article before you created it last month. I mean, Felis and Leopardus already have tables with much of the same information, so I'd like to see what can stand out as a definitive resource that clearly passes 3b. Someone just pointed that out on the talk page today, and while a merger to Felidae is certainly feasible (34 species is not that long) for once I'm not going to push for one.

Reywas92^Talk 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on this- I've converted the genus tables to just have a header like the Cetacean list instead of a surrounding color, and added a population column which I've filled with the data present at the IUCN site. It doesn't have data for all species, so I'll look further. The list isn't linked in a lot of other pages because one user dislikes these types of lists and has decided to prove that it is duplicative by removing the seealso links I made and instead add in subsets of this page onto Felidae etc.. I'm not going to argue about it with them unless/until I get a wider consensus. --PresN 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see they're now copying your work into the Felidae article and it doesn't look anywhere as good by combining columns. I think either that should be left as it was as bullets, linking to the list, or your list should be merged there. I would be glad to back you up on that because otherwise this wouldn't pass 3b and their table is ugly. Reywas92^Talk 05:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. Jts1882, who is also active in the area, has added some suggestions for reorganization on the talk page which I'm taking up, so the list will be in flux for a bit while I add data into the new columns. --PresN 02:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now addressed all of your points, @Reywas92:, so this is ready for another look. --PresN 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any further problems, Support Reywas92^Talk 23:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I love animal lists so I'm happy you put effort into this but I have two questions. It looks like you excluded all extinct felids despite mentioning at least one (Proailurus) in the lead? I don't think this can be considered a list of felids without including all felids in the list. Also this list appears to be copied in the Felidae page. Is this a duplication issue? Mattximus (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I excluded extinct felids for two reasons: 1) the other animal lists exclude them (unless they went extinct post-1500CE), so I followed suit 2) extinct species are much more chaotic as to how they are divided into genuses etc.- a lot of time it's just one skeleton someone saw in the 1800s that some minimal research (compared to how much goes into extant species) has put into a category. It didn't seem to fit with the more robust table of extant felids.

As to duplication, see above- one editor disagreed with this list's existence and has tried to inject a table into Felidae to force its merger. It's overwhelming the article a bit in my opinion, and I'm also expanding out this table with additional information at the moment in order to further justify its separation from Felidae. --PresN 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment I realise that you've already been discussing this subject on the article's talk page, but, speaking as your average zoology-ignorant pleb, I had absolutely no clue what "felids" were until I opened the article. I do know what felines are, though. For what it's worth, I think "felines" is the more WP:COMMONNAME and would therefore make this technical article more understandable, but that's really a discussion for editors who have spent more time on the article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors:. To be fair to User:PresN that was the original title and it was changed as a compromise. The problem is that felines is used both broadly for all living cats and more narrowly for subfamily Felinae, exluding the pantherines of subfamily Pantherinae (e.g. lions and tigers). This sets up a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and use of an unambiguous term, although I doubt many people seeing list of felines would be surprised to see lions and tigers included. Perhaps the issue should be reopened.   Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, it's just that I read "A member of this family is also called a felid or feline" in the lead, and my immediate thought was "Well, why isn't this article called 'List of felines' then, since everyone knows what a feline is?". But, like I say, that's for better-informed editors than me to decide. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Director comment – We could really use another review to get this FLC over the line. I'd normally be happy to do it, but I'm the last remaining uninvolved closer so my hands are tied here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per Giants2008 an additional review is needed to close this so I'll happily take a look. The only issue I see is that the second sentence in the lead's final paragraph has four sources for such a small sentence and a single fact. It reads as citation overkill. Can the sources be cut down or the sentence separated? DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 22:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH: Done! --PresN 20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, support. This list is very detailed and complex, great work with it! DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. – zmbro _(talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the bay cat, you write "distribution in Indonesia" however most of the sightings are in Malaysia, not Indonesia. So this caption is incorrect. There is also a different (better?) range map in the Bay Cat page. Mattximus (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• actually several of these captions are confusing "Canada and parts of northern America" Do you mean "northern United States"? What about Alaska"?
• What does "Curved stretch of middle and southern Africa" even mean? Mattximus (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mattximus: Fixed these (and one more use of "America" to refer to the United States). --PresN 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are sufficiently reliable, formatted well, and the links are in working order. No problems to report here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 08:32:06 15 July 2019 (UTC) [12].

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following the promotion of the Billboard 200 number one list for 2001, here is the first Billboard album chart from 1945. Thank you all in advance. Lirim | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed a typo for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if Best-Selling Popular Record Albums or Billboard Best-Selling Popular Record Albums doesn't exist, why is this notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: These articles are not needed or could be redirected to the Billboard 200 page. The chart is mentioned here in the Billboard 200 article. The page was originally titled, List of Billboard number-one albums of 1945. As the first Billboard album chart, which incoporated all genres. This should be notable.Lirim | Talk 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought if notable, then redirects would be there, at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created a redirect.--Lirim | Talk

Comments

• "Robert Wright " is piped to a redirect.
• You use "topped" five times in the lead, can you mix it up a little for less repetitive prose?
• " was certified gold " link "certified".
• Is there any reason that "Original Cast" is thus capitalised in the table?
• "18 weeks, by Capitol for 17 weeks and by RCA Victor for nine week" MOSNUM, 18/17/9 or eighteen/seventeen/nine.
• "Bing Crosby (pictured in 1951) was the only artist with two albums atop the chart." do you mean the only "solo" artist?

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank You.--Lirim | Talk 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Grammar:

• Comma needed after "Best-Selling Popular Record Albums" in the first sentence.
• No comma after "three weeks" in paragraph two sentence two.
• No comma after "Glenn Miller & His Orchestra" in paragraph two sentence five.
• No comma after "album of the year" in the second-to-last sentence in the final paragraph.

Also, no images used on the page have alt text, which is needed for accessibility reasons. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 20:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH: Done.--Lirim | Talk 22:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look great. Happy to support. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment Support – Decca Records could use a link in the lead, unless there's one that I missed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Done.--Lirim | Talk 23:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Kinda picky but in one instance you write out "twelve" while everywhere else you use numbers for everything above 10. I'd say "12" for consistency
• 9 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
• The bottom 2 images seem a little big to me.

Sorry this has been up so long. Should have my support soon! – zmbro _(talk) 03:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Thank you. The Rambling Man, critizied that the numbers all need the same format, so I didn't change it.--Lirim | Talk 06:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good for me. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Everything looks good on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found and fixed two redirects in the lead and see also section and also fixed missing dot. Whole table should be checked at an angle of redirects. Eurohunter (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: I found one redirect in the table and removed it. Thank you.--Lirim | Talk 01:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting! --PresN 08:32, 15 July 2019 (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) 23:10:31 14 July 2019 (UTC) [13].

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it’s been sitting in my queue for several years now after a stalled 2014 nomination. It’s fundamentally the same as then, when I improved it from the start to meet guidelines. This article covers all the NFL’s rushing champions - that is, the user with the most rushing yards at the end of the regular season. It also denotes which players are currently active, which players made the Hall of Fame, which players won major awards, and which players won the title in their first season. References are cited when needed, with a broad general references section covering all of the essential references for the table. Notes are added for years in which a non-standard number of games are played (1932 to 1934, as well as the two strike-shortened seasons of 1982 and 1987). Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Seven rushing champions have recorded over 2,000 rushing yards..." - I'd suggest moving the link to "over 2,000 rushing yards".

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Image size: Per WP:THUMBSIZE, image size (such as "150px" as used here) should not be forced. Rather, use "|upright=". Simply leaving out the size may be appropriate as well. They just seem too small as is.

• Done. The images fine nicely without forced sizes. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: All images are missing alt text.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Key: I'd suggest removing the top row ("Symbol"/"Meaning") as the first four entries are not symbols and the layout makes it evident that the second column provides the meaning of the first.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Key: Every column is defined except "team". Either add it to the key, or (better yet) limit the key to the actual symbols and spell out "Yards" in the winners table. They all seem self-explanatory.

• Good idea - done. I've also moved the "games" note to the table. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both winners tables are missing row scope.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorporate Template:sortname with each player so it will sort by last name rather than first.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some entries with multiple symbols have spaces between each symbol, others are unspaced. I'd recommend a space between on all.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• References: Some titles are rendered in title case (i.e. last bullet and footnote 1) while others are in sentence case (i.e. footnote 3). Choose one style for all references.

• Moved all to title case. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 9 needs an en dash between years.

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Given the title of this article (and the fact that the article on the general concept is at Rush (gridiron football), would it not be more accurate to say "rushing (also known as running)" rather than the opposite way round.......?

• Great catch; done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't bold "rushing title"

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You have "accomplished" twice in quick succession - maybe change the second one to "achieved"....?

• Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Player won the title in his first season of professional football" - what is sourcing this for each player concerned?

• I've gone ahead and removed this, actually. It isn't used on other featured lists in this series AFAIK and sourcing would require adding a ref column, which really isn't needed given the sufficiency of the general references. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Is there a reason the third paragraph has no refs?

• The third paragraph sources everything from the general citations (specifically general citation 6, which ranks every rushing champion, team, year, and yardage number). Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for most of the second paragraph?

  General citations, namely the PFR link, but I have now added a citation for the seven 2,000 yard rushers as it was readily available. I removed one specific claim (the number of 1,500 yard rushers being more common at 16 games) that was not factually based from PFR but retained the 14-game statistic, as it is readily available from the source; I did reword to be less opinion and just factually note the commonality of 1,000 yard rushing champs. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What's sourcing the entire "List of AFL rushing title winners" section?

  It is covered by the general citation, but I have added an additional citation into the table itself to the NFL Record book. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I got. Great job on this. – zmbro _(talk) 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support – zmbro _(talk) 23:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – One thing that immediately catches my attention is that the main table itself is apparently unsourced. You have general references at the bottom of the page, but the sourcing would be stronger if you would add the appropriate sources as inline cites in the table headings. Other than that point, the sourcing looks good. It is reliable, the references are well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Still, I'd like to see the main references converted to inline before this gets promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see about adding them. My main issue with that is that this could require having either a ref column with 4-5 citations for some of the entries (for players with MVP awards, OPOY awards, active players, hall of famers, etc.) or leaving the awards as general references while citing specifically the table claims (season, winner, team, yards, and games). Which of the two is preferred? Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008 I have gone ahead and cited specifically the yards source, which covers all of the columns for the NFL table; I also added a specific citation in the upper-alpha note for games that sources the number of league games played per season. I have removed both of these new citations from the general references table. The remaining general references cover which players are active, Hall of Farmers, and award winners. Does this resolve the issue or is more needed? Toa Nidhiki05 13:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better. I'd consider this source review a pass now. Thanks for adding those cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:15:29 14 July 2019 (UTC) [14].

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now my sixth AFL-related FLC, and follows on from my previous successful nominations for AFL Rising Star and 2017 AFL Rising Star. Allied45 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not much to pick up on here, but I wouldn't bold Callum Mills in the first table. Bold isn't supposed to be used for emphasis and I don't think you need to mark him out as the overall winner in that table because the second one serves that purpose. Also, I would reverse "Mills became the first New South Wales–born player to win the award, and the third Sydney recipient" and mention his club first. As it is written there is the slight possibility that "third Sydney recipient" could be taken to mean "third player born in Sydney" and I think changing the order would remove that possibility..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done :) Allied45 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Change the hover/{{Abbr}} text on the Ref. header to "Reference" since all rows have only one reference.

I see nothing else needing attention. Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NatureBoyMD, this is done. Allied45 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Comparing this to 2017 AFL Rising Star, the lead seems short compared to that one. I think you should have the paragraph from 2017 about the nominating process in all these Rising Star lists for consistency; it also gives the reader insight on the process. I also think this would look better because having an image go into the references just looks weird to me.
• Sorry for being nitpicky but going along with 2017, put the "round" column in the table in the front

Great job on this. – zmbro _(talk) 03:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Zmbro! In response to your concerns, I was advised in my most recent FLC for AFL Rising Star that the scope in the table should always be in the first column. This is why I have rearranged it to have the player first. Once this FLC goes through, I will use this is the "new standard" and can modify 2017 so it is consistent. In regards to the lead, I removed the extensive explanation about the nomination process and instead linked it to the relevant section in the main AFL Rising Star article. I believe this is better than essentially replicating the same information in 25 or so articles, particularly if there are any changes or updates (it is easier to update in one place!). Again, I can modify 2017 so it is in similar style. I get your point about the images, but it is never going to look the same on all devices anyway. I hope this helps address your comments :) — Allied45 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Makes sense to me. Happy to support :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Mostly AFL sources which are all acceptable. The non-AFL sources, SBS Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News Australia, Herald Sun, Jimboomba Times, The Age, TV Tonight, and the Bunbury Mail all pass reliability tests. Sourcing contains consistent parameters. Ref bots don't bring up any concerns as well. My one concern is that there is no clear indication about where the 2005 data is sourced from. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 16:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DanielleTH, may I ask what you mean by "2005 data"? Allied45 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied45: Oh! I'm so sorry, I was source checking two FLCs at once and put that onto the wrong one! I support the FLC, the sources are all good. DanielleTH ^{(Say hi!)} 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielleTH: No worries, thanks! Allied45 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 18:04:01 7 July 2019 (UTC) [15].

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 27 of these year-by-year country number one lists at FL status, so here's what will hopefully be #28, covering a year in which the band Alabama broke a record for consecutive number ones........as long as you ignore a Christmas song -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Ray Charles was more associated with the soul and rhythm and blues genres, but in 1985 he had a number one on the country chart." Says who? This could be rewritten and one/two refs would be good for the genre aspect.
  • The ref in the lead (after "Although he was far more associated with the soul and rhythm and blues genres during his lengthy career") covers this, and I added a second one for good measure
• Ref 8/9: AllMusic is a publisher
  • Amended
• Is there a reason AllMusic is linked everytime and Billboard isn't? There is no need to link to these sites/magazines in refs.
  • De-linked AllMusic in refs
• Just one tipp: Billboard has an entire archive for the biggest charts. 1985 Country Songs here [16] There is no need to have 52 individual refs, when there is one. It's not wrong, but this could save you and the reader time.

--Lirim | Talk 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great, as always.--Lirim | Talk 10:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Make sure band names that start with "The" are lowercase mid-sentence in the lead (per MOS:THEMUSIC). Other than that looks great as usual :-) – zmbro _(talk) 03:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – can't find any issues :) Allied45 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made one minor grammatical change but other than that it looks great. Table looks great, sources are all formatted properly, sorting is correct, and the lede is really good - love the detail on individual artists. Great work! Toa Nidhiki05 12:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are reliable and well-formatted, and the links are all in working order. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 July 2019 (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) 18:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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