Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2021

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about the 55 winners of the 67 editions of the Macau Grand Prix, an annual motor race held in the streets of Macau in the month of November. Many famous names in motor racing like Michael Schumacher, Ralf Schumacher, David Coulthard and Ayrton Senna have won this prestigious race. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related to junior-level motorsports on Wikipedia. I look forward to all comments. MWright96 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "a eight-lap qualifying race" => "an eight-lap qualifying race"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "A total of eight drivers Jan Bussell...." - think there should be a colon or a comma or something in there
  • Reworded sentence MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "MacDonald holds the records for the longest period of time between race wins along with his maiden victory and last–seven years between the 1965 race and the 1972 edition" - apologies, but I can't follow this bit at all
  • Have changed the structure of the sentence MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreno photo caption needs a full stop
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Same with Senna photo
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made changes to the list based on your queries MWright96 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead has duplicate links, e.g. Arsenio Laurel and 2020 Macau Grand Prix.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ""the 1962 race and the 1963 edition" I would conflate, to "the 1962 and 1963 editions" (or races).
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar for "the 1965 race and the 1972 event."
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "most wins for a team" relevant given that so many different regulations have been followed throughout the lifetime of the event?
  • Uncertain about this one MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps as long as you are saying which rules for which "record" holders, that wouldn't be so bad. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added extra prose MWright96 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ""of the 67 editions of the event, there have been 55 race winners" to prevent quick repeat of "of" go for " there have been 55 race winners in the 67 editions of the event,"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "was local driver Eduardo de Carvalho at the 1954 event," which rules?
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "first win in the 2020 race." rules?
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "and the motorcycling event" what's that? first I've seen of it in this article.
  • The Macau motorcycle Grand Prix MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this notable? Is there a link for it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added wikilink MWright96 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sortable table means link all linked articles every time.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Chassis – Engine" is header but then all entries are separated by an unspaced hyphen, not a spaced en-dash.
  • Changed title MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:FLAG non-compliance with those unexplained flags in the "Entrant" column.
  • Removed flags MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Does "entrant" mean team?
  • Yes MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bowman Racing is piped to different articles (although one is a redirect, but better to fix them for consistency).
  • Fixed MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Speedsport Magazine" if it's a magazine, should be in italics.
  • It's a motorsport statistics and results database with "magazine" in its name MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Have made changes according to the queries raised above and have replied to all of them MWright96 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed: [2]

Formatting

• Notes section is always before the bibliography. Generally the bibliography is after references, but that isn't so pertinent (I've seen it both ways)
  • Moved MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Santos" seems to be missing from the author's name in ref 3
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest a translated title for ref 3, like they one in ref 14
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely CNN should the |work= so its italicized in ref 7?
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• motor.es seems like the actual work name, should probably be under |work= as well
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume Speedsport Magazine should be italicized as well—Auto Bild, another newspaper, already is
  • Speedsport Magazine is a motorsport database not an actual printed publication or news site MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I do wonder if VW Press UK should be spelled out, but it seems fine.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Honestly, Crash (and Crash Media Group) don't seem to have much of a reputation—they don't even have a Wikipedia page. The fact that the article itself says "Anonymous (not verified)" is a bit worrying—I would recommend switching it out with an alternative source
  • Crash Media Group formally were the publishers of the Autocourse Annuals in the mid- to late-2000s. Nevertheless, have removed MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• Good from what I can tell. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Have made changes where applicable and have replied to all the above queries MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for you're thoroughness and quick responses. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Minor point, but the bit in the caption about Michael Schumacher being a seven-time Formula One champion could probably use a cite since that isn't verified elsewhere in the article.
• Ref 1 needs the plural pp. instead of p. for the page cite; changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Have addressed each of the two points raised above MWright96 (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – My couple of small concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Su[reply]

Closing; promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): A.A Prinon (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had put a lot effort to create this article. I tried to deliver a very good article with reliable sources and significant coverage. I tried to meet the WP:GNG of this article. I gave full lists of centuries serially with reliable sources.A.A Prinon (talk)

Support: Because In my opinion, this article is made following the guidelines and no objectable differences from the other pages existing of it's kind. Kirubar (talk) 13:12, 07 June 2021

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption and both column and rowscopes.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• For each column header, you should have e.g. `!scope="col"|Player`
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `|1` it should be `!scope="row"|1`

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Please wait and give some time. I will try to fix those. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 06:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I have added the captions and the coloumscopes in the tables. And I have also corrected formatting per MOS:DATB. But I have not added any rowscopes for primary cell, because rowscope for primary cell is not needed in this article. All other article of this type related to cricket centuries also don't have rowscopes for primary cell like `!scope="row"|1`, as it does not comply to manual of style provided by WikiProject Cricket for cricket-related lists. Hope, now everything is fine in your views. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.A Prinon: What manual of style are you referring to? I can't find anything linked from WP:CRICKET. The "primary" cell doesn't need to be the first one (though ideally it is), and you can make it so there's no visual effect if you don't like the look, but the cells in 1 column need to be marked with rowscopes or the table does not meet the MOS for accessibility. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that prior cricket FLs don't have rowscopes, as while it's been a requirement for quite a while we only started firmly enforcing it relatively recently, but unfortunately "the tables in cricket lists don't need to meet accessibility standards because WP:CRICKET doesn't want to" isn't going to work. --03:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• Not sure if I missed these first time round, or if the content has changed since.....
• Image caption says "as of February 2021". We're now nearly in May.
• "On 17 January 2018 during 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series" => "On 17 January 2018 during the 2017–18 Bangladesh Tri-Nation Series"
• No need to link Bangladesh national cricket team twice in the first paragraph
• Ireland not linked in the third paragraph
• "The only centurion in this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, scoring" => "The only centurion at this ground in T20Is is Ahmed Shehzad, who scored"
• Bangladesh national cricket team linked twice more in the last two paragraphs - neither link is needed
• "Only one Twenty20 International centuries" => "Only one Twenty20 International century"
• Ref 11: "Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur, CricketArchive. Retrieved 2021-04-14" - this date format is not consistent with all the other refs
• Hopefully that's finally it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, Fixed! — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment

• Why are the "as of" dates on the three tables different and one of them more than a year ago? This gives the impression that the data is not up to date (i.e. there could have been more T20I centuries achieved there since March 2020) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: The data is up to date. "As of" dates are placed according to the date of last match played on this ground. The last T20I match on this ground was played on 11 March 2020. After then, no T20I matches was played on this ground. So, how could there be any century scored after 11 March 2020. A.A Prinon (Alternative) (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the article doesn't say that no T20I matches have been played on this ground since last March, does it? All it says is that the data is accurate as of last March, so a casual reader might look at it and think "well, that data is only accurate up to March 2020 and it's now April 2021. For all I know there have been 5 more T20I centuries scored since then and the article hasn't been updated". If you want to keep the date as being the date of the last match played there, then you should put "As of 11 March 2020, the date of the most recent match played at the ground, only one Twenty20 International century has been scored at...." to make it clear what the situation is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your suggestion. Fixed that as you suggested. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 07:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's a purge of these kinds of lists going on right now so it's worth seeing if User:Störm will nominate it for deletion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM for ping. I think it will be nice if we can find 1 or 2 sources in any language where these centuries are discussed as a set or group. Regarding AfDs, I think I'm at the very end of my so-called purge, energy is already low. I am about to stop these regular AfDs altogether. Thanks again. Störm (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: Thanks for commenting. Actually, I am working for a long time about finding sources of these lists. I recently have found a source which is not visible in google search but in ESPNcricinfo. See here, here and also here. These sources are enough for these type of articles. Besides these are also discussed as a group in HowStat. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 06:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these centuries discussed? Can we just check that before we waste our time when Störm continues the AFD drive and takes this one down too? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: These are discussed in different match reports of the respective matches in which century was scored. We often see different discussions or reports where it is discussed that it is the Xth century scored at this ground, scored by X player etc. And please post further replies on my talk page other than posting here. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't doubt that passing mentions are made, but Störm has been nominating articles exactly like this for deletion. And they have often changed their minds on things. I don't want us to waste time in this process if this is about to be deleted soon (or indeed, after some unknown pause). This is directly pertinent to this nomination, even the existence of the very page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• there are quite a few missing authors: refs 4, 7, 9,
• ref 11 seems to be formatted differently (has a comma)
• ref 27 shouldn't be all caps, recommend title case

Reliability

• seems fine

Verifiability

• no issues. Aza24 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Hi. I have fixed all the issues you raised. Thanks for commenting. Please reply here to state if now it is ok or not. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.A Prinon, just one more thing to address, Knight 2013 in ref 13 doesn't seem to link to any book, will be happy to pass the source review what that is addressed. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Aza24: Yes, I have replaced the ref 13 with a better source. Thank you. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 04:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a nuisance, that ref looks great but we need a page number for verifiability. Also, I think the publisher is Sangam Books, right? Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Aza24: I have added the page number. Thank you and hoping for your positive response now. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A.A Prinon:,

• Ref 11 were not access please fix it.
• It is better to link Bangladeshi.

(Fade258 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: Thanks for comment. I have changed the ref 11 fully because CricketArchive is a subscription site, so hard to verify. And the issue which is raised by you, I have also input that one in the new ref- that is I have given the URL access date. And the second one you said- It is better to link Bangladeshi. Actually, when any same word is already linked in an article, it is not needed to link the word all the time it is used. At the very first sentence of the article, the word "Bangladesh" is already linked. Bangladeshi is just its demonym, so it also links to the article Bangladesh, so it is not needed to link Bangladeshi. I hope now everything is ok and please give a Support if you find no other problems in your views. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prinon, That is ok but Bangladesh is linked twice One of them is recently done by you and Another one is on the Bangladesh Vs Zimbabwe. (Fade258 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: That is different. The word Bangladesh in Bangladesh vs Zimbabwe links to the article Bangladesh national cricket team but "Bangladesh" at the top of the page is linked to the country Bangladesh. Any more issues? Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prinon, Ohh sorry for my missque.(Fade258 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: It is ok, now you may please share your thoughts. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- As per all the wikipedia guidelines and those guidelines which is used while creating of this article. Great Job @A.A Prinon.(Fade258 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Support - The page fulfils wikipedia guidlines and it has enough number of references as well. Proudly Indian 9:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Director comment – I was going to ping the nominator to see if PresN's accessibility comment had been resolved, but I see that A.A Prinon has been indeffed for harassment. Does anyone want to have a look at this and fix the issue if it's still outstanding? That seems to be the main obstacle to promotion at this point, barring further comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look Giants2008. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My accessibility concern has been addressed; closing as promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an awards list about a show that is perhaps more notable for the awards it didn't receive. This is modeled after my previous FLCs for various awards lists. As always, any feedback is welcome. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the large number of Black actors" - don't think black needs a capital
• "It also was nominated" => "It was also nominated"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe change Baltimore, Maryland to Baltimore, Maryland

Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solid work. I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table. Some will say that "Television Programs of the Year" should sort after "Television: Dramatic Series", but there's no consistency on this on Wikipedia and I think it's fine as is. There are a lot of media lists that I don't feel comfortable doing prose reviews for, and this is one of them, but I don't think that matters for purposes of this review; you know what you're doing, and you've got a couple of supports that include prose already. The coding at the top of the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. There are no images below the lead.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the list and it is nice to see this show being featured in more and more featured content on Wikipedia. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I have read through the lead a few times and I honestly could not find anything that need further adjustment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes #3 and #5 are the same. Can they be merged?
• Wikilink Dave McNary, Alessandra Stanley, and Emma Jones (journalist).
  • Not sure the Emma Jones article refers to the same person this article cites... RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark sources from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Only certain parts of Rolling Stone seem to be paywalled, and this isn't one of them. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark sources from The Atlantic with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from The Baltimore Sun with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark sources from The Wall Street Journal with "|url-access=subscription".
• Sources from BBC.com should link to that (or just BBC Online).
• Be consistent with either San Francisco Chronicle (#7) or SFGate (#44).
  • These are actually two different websites at two different domain names. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You can use {{IMDb title|id=0306414|title=The Wire|section=awards}} for the external link.

That's it from me. Ping me when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Comments above – everything I didn't respond to should be fixed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Happy to support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – I spotted no further formatting issues on top of those already raised above, reliability looks all right throughout, and the links are all in working order. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography of Johnny Depp, the guy who portrayed Captain Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissorhands, Sweeny Todd, and some interesting... portrayals of Willy Wonka and the Mad Hatter, among many other roles. Been slowly working on this for about a month primarily working on referencing, and should now hopefully meet the FL criteria.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need a caption ("|+ caption_text", or if that text would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it only visible to screen reader software with "|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}")
• Television table is missing colscopes; Video games table is missing colscopes on one column --PresN 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the comments PresN, I have added relevant sronly caption texts to the tables and filled in the remaining colscopes to the television and video game sections [6]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the image caption, include where the photo was taken for context.

  Done, added "Depp at the Deauville American Film Festival in September 2019."

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question about the following sentence: He has starred in Dark Shadows (2012) with Michelle Pfeiffer, The Lone Ranger (2013) with Armie Hammer, and Transcendence (2014) with Morgan Freeman. Why point out the co-stars for just these three films in particular? It seems rather random and unnecessary to me.

  I tried to follow some other filmography leads when making this one and some mention co-stars. Though happy to remove if it is deemed redundant (no specific reason those co-stars are mentioned).

• Thank you for the explanation. Upon further reflection and research, the current wording works. When I first read this sentence, I was uncertain about the Dark Shadows part in particular. It makes sense to me to single out a co-star for something like The Lone Ranger, which is very much about these two characters/actors, while I had considered Dark Shadows more of an ensemble work. However, upon further research, most cast listings put Pfeiffer as second billing so the current version actually does match how the film was marketed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For this sentence, Depp has been described as one of the most versatile and prolific actors of his generation., attribute in the prose who is describing Deep this way as it should be immediately clear to the reader.

  I think this was in lead before I rewrote it and looking at the two sources they each describe him as a "versatile" and "prolific" actor but nothing about "most" or "of his generation" so I have removed it.

• Thank you for double-checking this and removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have three comments for this sentence: In recent years he has started to produce some films. There should be a comma after years. Do not use words like "recent years" per MOS:CURRENT because that will change as the list ages and it is better to be more specific. I would also replace "some films" with the exact number or reword it to avoid it as that phrasing is unnecessarily vague.

  I have changed it to Beginning in 2011, he has produced films through his company Infinitum Nihil.

• That is a big improvement. Thank you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why his career decline and setbacks are not addressed at all in this list? For instance, I am surprised nothing about Fantastic Beasts is mentioned in the lead. I would think that it should warrant a sentence about his overall career decline to provide a full context of his filmography/career as I believe this leans a little too positive rather than objective. To be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Depp's work (and sympathy for his current situation), but I think it should worked out somehow.

  There was an extensive discussion/RfC on the main article [8] about whether it is worth mentioning his career setbacks (currently no mention in the lead), and if so how should it be worded. Whilst writing the list I held off to see if it was resolved so something simliar can be added here but no action has been taken there. Personally though, I am happy to mention his setbacks here like being removed from Fantastic Beasts and Pirates of the Caribean, so I'll try to work on wording.

• Thank you for the link. I was unaware that this discussion had taken place. Apologies for not checking that before making my above comment. Just to be clear, I was not referring to any issues in his personal life, although that is probably inextricably linked to his professional decline. I think the Fantastic Beasts part is worth a mention, but I was not aware that his Pirates of the Caribbean was official as I have only heard rumors about it. I will leave this to your better judgement as it is a sticky situation that is still evolving, and this will not hold back my support for the list's promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there is an entire section devoted to his work in documentary film, I would think that would warrant at least a sentence in the lead.

  Added Moreover, Depp has appeared in many documentary films, mostly as himself.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job with the lead. I would imagine that a filmography list for such a well-known actor who has had such a long career is difficult to do. When all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @Aoba47: for the comments (it was a tad tricky writing hope it is not too long though), I have responded above. I am not too famliar with writing TV articles (did come across your Lady Blue FA though when rewrote this list) but I'll try to see if can write some comments anyway. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the responses. I hope that my comments back were not too long. I do have a tendency to ramble. I support the list for promotion. I can better understand the trickiness about discussing the current state of Depp's career so it may be best to leave that to his main article, but I will leave that up to your judgement. I did enjoy reading through this list as it did make me want to go back and rewatch some of his films. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He has starred --> "He starred"

  Done

• Could you place the scope on the titles rather than the year?

  To my knowledge I do not believe using scope rows on the year as opposed to the film title causes issues in terms of accessability for the table. And it seems many other FL filmographies do it this way as well, though I can happy to check with a more experienced editor than myself about it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lede, should the (year) be placed directly after the film title?

  Changed

• For each of his roles --> "For each role" or "For each performance"

  Changed to the latter

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thank you for the comments I have responded and replied above. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are fine, but there's some date format mixing; I've gone and converted them all to US format since that was the primary. Also formatted isbns. Closing as promoted. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I added references. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "earned him international recognition as an action hero." - this statement could do with a source
• "Willis also has lent" - "Willis has also lent" is more natural language IMO
• Film titles starting with a number should sort as if it was written as a word, and titles starting with the word "A" should sort on the next word
• If the date column is re-sorted, the two "TBA" entries act as if they are earlier than 1980 - they should probably sort as if they were later than 2022
• Roles which are a full name (forename/surname) should sort based on the surname rather than the forename
• Unclear why List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a "See also". I presume it's because somewhere on the list is such a film, but that isn't obvious
• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Year" should be "!scope=col| Year". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "| 1980" should be "!scope=row| 1980"
• Images need alt text, which can just be e.g. "Bruce Willis"; if it's not present, screen reader software instead reads out the file name. --PresN 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have two suggestions for this part, After making a guest appearance in Miami Vice (1984). I would say "guest-starring" as it is more concise. I am uncertain about using the year as a parenthetical as it could imply the show lasted for that year. Something like "guest-starring in a 1984 episode of Miami Vice" would remove that ambiguity.
• Since both his Miami Vice and The Twilight Zone episodes have articles, would it be beneficial to link them in the lead?
• I would revise this part, Since then, Willis, to avoid saying "then" as it is rather vague. It is better to be more exact when possible.
• For this sentence, Overall, films featuring Willis have grossed US$5.3 billion worldwide, making him one of the highest-grossing actors in the world., would it be beneficial to incorporate a "as of X date" as he is still making films so the number could (and likely will) increase with time.

Good work with the list. I really like Bruce Willis so I enjoyed looking through this. It makes me want to go back and rewatch some of his work again. Once all my above comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the responses. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The formatting and reliability of the references both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. My source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that this list is outside of my wheelhouse, but following the example of past FLs I think this is ready --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• is there really no other refs for the music videos other than mewithoutYou's website? It would be better to avoid primary sources...
  • I can't find the information in a better place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, just thought I'd check. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• I'm not sure Jonathan Bautts can count as the publisher for ref 2
  • Removed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• your inclusion of locations is inconsistent, unless there is some pattern I'm not identifying
  • Removed --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You link Billboard but no other publishers/works, I suggest unlinking
  • Unlinked --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• What makes Jonathan Bautts a reliable source?
  • I see that you have been reading my FAC reviews :P It is an interview with one of the band members and the answer comes directly from them. This was a hard one, because of how old the EP is and how rarely people ask the band about Blood Enough For Us All. I can go back to looking for a better source, but I haven't found much. The internet is devoid of references to the EP and there is nothing in newspapers about it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Punk news a reliable source?
  • Punk news is a 22 year old publication with editors. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, see below. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• spotchecks not done. Will probably do some later. Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Have checked a couple (15, 27, 35, 21), looks good.

@Aza24: please let me know what you think -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of looking when you pinged! Given the lesser sourcing restrictions for FLC (vs FAC) I'm inclined to let certain sources be permissible. Give me a second to do some spotchecks... Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, pass for source review. Good work! Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• If any of the tables needs sortability, it would be the one called "Music". I think I buy that the table is short enough that sortability wouldn't make a big difference ... but I'm open to thoughts that you or the other reviewers have on this.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding is fine. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems. All relevant retrieval dates are present. The source review should have this criterion covered.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. (I hope you'll drop by my plant list nominations every now and then, but they tend to be long, so don't sweat it.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: let me know what you think --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 01:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: a second ping about your review --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

Can take a look. I have an old FLC myself, if you are interested.

• "The band was formed in 2001 as a side project to The Operation, an alternative band that shares most of its members with mewithoutYou that was active between 1999 and 2001" I don't really like 'that shares... that was", imo it makes the sentence feel a little clunky. Can you rephrase, maybe "The Operation, an alternative band active from 1999 to 2001 that shared most of its members with mewithoutYou"?
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "as a mewithoutYou release is murky." can you expand on this? what does 'official status' mean? What does 'murky' mean? Maybe add note 2 here...
  • I removed that and moved to calling it a demo which is more representative of what it is. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• link campfire songs? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think, Eddie891 --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I Feel this meets the FL criteria, support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... this currently stands as the only Square Enix-related list article not to be featured. I created this article initially, and PresN has done further edits and tidying. While I originally planned this to include all media, that will likely be a different list at another time if that ever materialises due to extensive sourcing difficulties for novelizations, mangas, guides, ect.. I feel this article is relatively close to FL status, and it's best not to let it linger too long. ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

• I would suggest changing The official website counts... to "Square Enix counts...", because I don't see why it matters that they said it through the series' website... but I also don't really know why this is important in the first place unless RSs are making observations about various ways of counting the games.
• Its first game premiered in Japan in 1989, and SaGa games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America and Europe across multiple video game consoles since its debut on the Game Boy. I don't know if I'm reading this incorrectly, but it seems to be repeating that the series began on the Game Boy in 1989 twice?
• Almost every entry is a standalone title with its own world and gameplay mechanics. could be written more smoothly as something like "Most of the games have their own separate settings and game mechanics"
• Almost every title has been developed with the input or leadership of series creator Akitoshi Kawazu. - I'd suggest rewriting this in active voice, ie "Series creator Akitoshi Kawazu led or advised the development of most of the games"
• SaGa games were released solely for home and handheld consoles since the first release in 1989 through Unlimited Saga in 2002, after which development of new titles ceased and only ports and remakes of existing games for consoles, computers, and mobile phones were produced for a decade. - this feels pretty verbose, and it's repeating that the series began in 1989 for the third time. I would suggest something like "New games in the series were released for home and handheld consoles until Unlimited Saga in 2002, after which Square Enix only developed ports and remakes of already released SaGa games for a decade."
• In 2012 Emperors SaGa, the first of four mobile or web browser games, was released, with the latest, Imperial SaGa Eclipse, produced in 2019, and a single additional release for consoles and computers was SaGa: Scarlet Grace in 2016. also feels much more verbose and convoluted than it needs to be.
• One collection release of SaGa games has been published, the 2020 Collection of SaGa: Final Fantasy Legend for the Nintendo Switch, containing ports of the original three Final Fantasy Legend games. as does this. Also keep in mind that you have not mentioned "Final Fantasy Legend" until this point and that it feels out of nowhere to bring up Final Fantasy, something not explained until the next paragraph.
• Since its debut on Game Boy, the SaGa series has released on over twenty different home and portable consoles, in addition to web browsers and mobile devices.[5] Many titles have been re-released on later platforms, either as a remake or an enhanced port. - this is mostly just repetition of information from the previous two paragraphs, right? You already bring up that Square Enix spent a decade re-releasing old games, and we already know that the series began on Game Boy.
• Assuming "titles" just means games and not films, books, etc, I think "games" is communicating that more clearly
• You have an extra parenthesis in 2020 — Nintendo Switch (Collection of SaGa)[8])
• Was it actually released in Japan as Warrior in the Tower of the Demon World ~ Sa·Ga, or is this just a translation of the Japanese title? Same for the English-Japanese titles of later games
• 2019 — Web Browser[5] - this is not a name, so change to "Web browser"
• In your references, you have Square Enix and Bandai Games presented as works rather than as publishers, and 1UP.com and (sometimes) RPGamer and Siliconera as publishers rather than as works
• USgamer is written with a lowercase G
• The reference titled "魔界塔士 サ・ガ (About)" has a script error
• The reference titled "Romancing SaGa 2 for PS4, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and PC launches December 15 - Gematsu" should have the name of the website removed from the title, and presented as the name of the work instead

Please ping me when you have responded to the above and I will take another look!--Alexandra^IDV 15:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandra IDV: I hope I've addressed everything above, plus a few extra things such as citation consistency. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did some additional edits to the citations, but I think it looks good now.--Alexandra^IDV 09:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "SaGa games have subsequently [....] since its debut" - there seems to be a bit of a plural/singular conflict there. Maybe change the second bit to "since the series debuted"
• Actually I think that's all I've got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Sorted, I hope. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I did some copy editing of my own, it looks ready for prime time! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Director comment – We still need a source review here. My knowledge of which sites are reliable for RPGs is not the best, and it looks like PresN had some involvement with preparing the list, so someone else will have to do this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Just had a look over of the sources. There were some missing publishers, a dead link and a missing archive, but I went ahead and took care of those. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A list covers the UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Vietnam. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Damian Vo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u so much :D Damian Vo (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing a caption (you have one in the key, but not the main tables).

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`

--PresN 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Damian Vo (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that the lead has a couple sources that tie them together as a set of places the government oversees for tourism. Cite [5] did not open for me, however.

Fixed. 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Damian Vo (talk)

• The table titles don't need to restate the column headings, "World Heritage Sites" and "Tentative sites" would be fine

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I merged the refs into the description like other WHS FLs, they don't need their own column
• "It is considered by UNESCO" is unnecessary, you can just describe this as a fact with a citation.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk)

• "center of the regional political power of Đại Việt for almost thirteen centuries" is very close to the source, please paraphrase more in your own words.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "started when Lý Công Uẩn moved the capital of Đại Việt in 1910" in the note [a] is weird grammar, not entirely sure what this means, 1910–2010 is a century

I removed this note altogether since it seems a little bit unnecessary to the article. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is 1397 considered "ancient"? the source doesn't call the city that.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Having suffered from the effects of three wars" should be preceded by "Despite"

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Karst is a topography or descriptor, not a countable object, so "1600 limestone pillars, karsts..." doesn't make sense

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Laos' -> Laos's per MOS:POSS

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the most outstanding limestone karst ecosystems in the world" and "contains terrestrial and aquatic habitats, primary and secondary forest" is too close to the source, please avoid copying
• "Exploration of caves has revealed archaeological traces of human activity for more than 30,000 years, ranging through the Neolithic and Bronze Ages to the historical era" same
• The average WHS description is shorter than the average tentative site's; consider adding a little to the shorter ones.

Some of the Tentative sites contain a list of group areas submitted for consideration, therefore it looks longer but still carries the same amount of sentences as the WHS description. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most common patterns are images of mountains, hills, and fields" Again, this is lifted directly from the source, which is actually copyrighted.
• "three kinds of writing system: the pictographs of Han Chinese, as well as talismans of Tày and Dao ethnic group" skip "as well as" because you've introduced a three-item list

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "historical-cultural relics, many traditions and beliefs that are of both tangible and intangible heritage values" same
• Biodiversity is one word; "example of mature karst in sub-tropical wet conditions" same
• "The Hương Sơn Complex comprises three groups of pagodas, temples, and caves linked with one another by waterways" same

Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I tried to give the sentences mentioned above a little tweak. Please have a look :D Damian Vo (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "the 17th session of the World Heritage Committee held in Colombia in 1993." where is that referenced?
• "the first and only mixed site in Southeast Asia" source says first but not only, and in any case is 6 years old.
• "centuries.[9][4]" order.
• "considered a remarkable construction" by whom?
• "caves.[15][14]" order.
• "over 1600" more than.
• "significant slice of" not encyclopedic in tone, more like a guidebook.
• "one of the most magnificent limestone" according to whom? Encyclopedia, not guidebook.
• "passage.[22][21]" order.
• Sortable tables should link linked items every time, e.g. karst.
• "established here in" no need for "here".
• 1438 is 1438bis.
• "As of 2019" it's 2021, is this still the case?
• "old carved" old?!
• "200 old carved stones and megaliths. Stones are carved with different " -> " 200 stones and megaliths, carved with different..."
• "with lots of" not encyclopedic tone.
• "The Yến Tử Monuments and Landscapes" I can't see (vii) in the English source and can't read Vietnamese...
• "geologic" why not geological?
• "the vii criteria" criterion (vii).
• satisfies the viii criteria likewise.
• General: singular of criteria is criterion.
• Ref 41 has two spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.

That's enough from me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! I just resolved the queries above, please have a look :D Damian Vo (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hi it's been two months since your review :D Let me know if you have any more comments. Damian Vo (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• There's quite a few retrieval dates missing

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• Checked a few, no issues
• Since the refs are all archived, the missing retrieval dates aren't pertinent enough to prevent a pass (though I would still recommend adding them). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing retrieval dates. Damian Vo (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complex of Huế Monuments As you do later in the list, I would place "the" before it.
• the sites became tourist destinations and used as a driving force for the development of tourism in Vietnam is a little awkward. I would reword.

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 22:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a little tweak. Thank you for the comments. Damian Vo (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 16:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list features all of the relevant information one would need to know about the office of the president of the University of Illinois System. Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would integrate the "History" section into the lede.
  • Done
• Much of the lede/history is unsourced.
  • I assume I was writing too many sentences between my sources, so I added references more frequently.
• Add links to the image caption
  • Done
• Why not just spell out the notes?
  • Changed
• Another image would be nice.
  • Added another image. I could modify the table to resemble the image setup which appears on List of presidents of the United States, but not every president on this list has a picture available.
    • Depends on how many don't have pictures. If it's only a few, go ahead. But if you're missing half, it'll work as is. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Illinois Industrial University.
  • Done
• Add sortability to the table.
  • Done

More later. ~ HAL333 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes according to your recommendations. Thrakkx (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Captions don't need periods.
  • Changed
• Could you add scope to the name column?
  • Not sure what you mean here.
• Link Stanley O. Ikenberry both times in the table.
  • Changed
• Was White the only president to resign? Did any die in office?
  • Based off of the short bios of each, none died in office. White is the only president to have resigned from a scandal. The next closest to a scandal would be Stoddard's presidency, who was ousted with a no confidence vote.
• Personal preference, but I think the images would look better if upright.
  • Changed

That's all. A short and simple list, but effective. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Changes made Thrakkx (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Very sorry for my tardiness. ~ HAL333 22:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-source related, but I find the notes column to take up a lot of space for no real purpose. Most of the entries are blank after all. I wonder if the remaining notes can be converted to literal notes next to the appropriate name (perhaps with the use of the {{efn}} template) to avoid this.
  • Adopted

@Aza24: I made a lot of additions to the sources per User:The Rambling Man's comments. Would you mind taking a second look? Thrakkx (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know if I ever responded to this but yes it looks fine still. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• multiple pages should be "pp." not "p."
  • Corrected
• Your inclusion of locations is inconsitent
  • Corrected. Locations removed from sources
• there is discontinuity with labeling the University of Illinois System as publisher vs website throughout.
  • Corrected. All listed as publisher.

Reliability

• I have no doubts on reliabillity.

Verifiability

• Spotchecks not done, will probably briefly do at some point. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made recommended changes. Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass for source review (unrelated query below) Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely optional, but I thought I'd bring up the potential use of a timeline graph—which I think is rather neat (You can see one I made lower down on the Librarian of Congress page). If you're interested, it may be worth inclusion; you can either make it yourself or I'd be open to doing so, in case you're not sure how to go about it. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like it would be good for inclusion (as long as it is allowed under WP:FL) The List of presidents of the University of Washington has one that I've seen. I like them. I have no experience in making one; you can have at it! Thrakkx (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added it. Thrakkx (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good! Sorry that I missed your earlier comment, or I would have done it myself :) Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The table is missing column and rowscopes, as well as a caption and rowscopes.

• Please add `|+ table caption` to the top of the table, or if it would duplicate a nearby section header you can visually hide the caption as `|+ {{sronly|table caption}}`
• Each column header should be marked with `scope="col"`, e.g. `! colspan=2 | Presidency` should be `! colspan=2 scope="col" | Presidency`
• For each row, the 'primary' cell should be marked with `scope="row"`, e.g. instead of `| 1` it should be `!scope="row"| 1`. If the way this changes the formatting of that column bothers you, you can add the `plainrowheaders` class to the top of the table at `{| class="wikitable"`

--PresN 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; Question: what about the bottom row of the table that lists the source? Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, missed that- yeah, even at the bottom column headers are contraindicated per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Consider moving the reference into the top header like your note is, or into the text. --PresN 14:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thrakkx (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• According to our own article on the subject, University of Illinois system, the "s" of system is not capitalised, so why is it capitalised throughout here? Some templates do capitalise the S, some don't, looks like the category does... bit of a mess which need to be sorted out.

 Comment: So this is puzzling to me. I believe capitalizing the "s" is correct here. "University of Illinois System" is a proper noun and it is the naming convention that the institution itself uses. The article title does have a lowercase "s," but every mention of the system in the article had an "S" until April 22 of this year. At some point in the article history, someone redirected capital System to lowercase system, citing WP:NCCAPS; yet in the very first sentence, it says capitalizing proper nouns is the correct convention. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "operation of the university" previous sentence had plural "universities".

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the appropriate senate" I don't really understand what that means.

 Fixed. "Appropriate senate" refers to each university senate. I changed the wording to "On recommendation of each university and..." Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "John Milton Gregory served as the first president" and "elected John Milton Gregory as the first president" repetitive.

 Fixed to "elected John Milton Gregory as president." Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "David D. Henry" redlinked in the table but not the lead?

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The year ranges in the table appear to be using em-dashes, not en-dashes.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much here on each entry in the table, such as why did each president leave? What did they do during their tenure, if anything?

 Comment: I will use the source listed in the table to craft some tenure summaries later in a few days and see what you think. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I made updates to the table. Would love your input. Thrakkx (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an unexplained gap between 1953 and 1954.

 Fixed. Typo. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And 2009 and 2010.

 Comment: According to the sources, it seems that White stepped down at the end of December 2009 and Ikenberry picked up at the beginning of January 2010, so I believe this gap would be justified. Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline year ranges should comply with MOS:DATERANGE.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes, be consistent with use of periods: sentence fragments normally don't take them, complete sentences do.

 Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Sdkb

• There's redundancy in the lead from mentioning Gregory twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed; changed wording to "established the office of the president," so that Gregory is not named twice.

• The president's salary would be a good piece of info to include; it should be available somewhere publicly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Added

• The notes column should not be sortable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed

• University of Illinois system has a lowercase s. I think we should probably follow that lead here, which will include moving the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Thanks for the comments! Thrakkx (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every comment here has been addressed, the article has passed image/source/etc. reviews (in some cases twice), and (only) one reviewer expressed their support. Is there anything left to be done? This FLC is quite old at this point... Thrakkx (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find any faults --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): alphalfalfa^(talk) 03:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. alphalfalfa^(talk) 03:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Per WP:CHRONO, the tables should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order i.e. the earliest laureates should be at the top, not the bottom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude Fixed. alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - you only changed "as of October 2020" in one place, but I took care of the other one for you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "As of October 2020" (in two places) - that was nearly nine months ago, it could do with updating. If it says that because that's when the most recent awards were given out, maybe consider saying "as of the 2020 awards"
• "Affiliates during the Manhattan Project...." - wouldn't hurt to add a few words to explain what this was for those who don't know eg "Affiliates during the Manhattan Project, the research program which developed the first nuclear weapons....."
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a random large whitespace in the notes section

• • @ChrisTheDude Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but with a few comments:

1. I created this page for Columbia, and for a few other top universities. Every year around October, I update the main list List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation together with a few other editors (and so that's why there is the saying "as of October 2020"), and the original purpose to set up these individual pages was to control the main article size and to provide details on universities with large numbers of laurates.
2. For consistency and fairness, the criteria for the inclusion of laureates are the same among all universities. As for the military affiliations such as those who worked for the military during the Manhattan project, there was a consensus to exclude them from the lists and only count academic positions, otherwise there'd be huge inflation for several universities.
3. The general format in the individual pages of different universities remains almost identical (e.g., List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard University), and was designed for easy comparison and data collection. For example, we generally keep the most recent laureates at the beginning of the tables so that it is easier to count (and proofread) how many laureates won since 2000.
4. Finally, to keep neutrality, I'd refrain from focusing too much on a single university. But since editor @Alphalfalfa: has chosen to nominate the Columbia's page for featured article, I'd like to give my support and appreciation. However, given what I said above, please do not alter the format and content too much. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• The tables needs a caption, e.g. at the top of the table code add "|+ <table_caption_text>" or, if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can make it only for screen reader software like "|+ {{sronly|<table_caption_text>}}". Captions allow screen reader software to jump to tables by name. You have one for the first table (though it has a line break for some reason) but not the other
• Column headers need to be marked with colscopes, e.g. "!Name" should be "!scope=col| Name". Colscopes and Rowscopes (below) allow screen reader software to properly read out tables verbally.
• The primary cell of each row should be marked with rowscopes, e.g. "|Wilhelm Wien" should be "!scope=row| Wilhelm Wien" --PresN 02:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @PresN Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The all caps in the titles of refs 12 and 73 should be removed.
• Refs 33, 38 and 134 are missing publishers.
• Other than those points, the formatting and reliability look okay throughout, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008 (Talk) Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 07:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • With those points resolved, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one comment:

the degree abbreviations (B.A., M.D., Ph.D., etc.) should not include periods. MOS:ABBR states that Wikipedia generally avoids using full point in upper-case acronyms. That is particularly important here, since the initialism in "EKA Lecturer" does not use full point. To fix the inconsistency, I say remove the periods. Thrakkx (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! alphalfalfa^(talk) 20:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC) [15].[reply]

This is the third sub-article that was created to support (and shorten) the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, although the second to make it here. The 2nd Division was founded during the Napoleonic Wars, and also fought in the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and both the First and the Second World Wars. This is a list of the orders of battle, in potentially collapsible tables, for each of these wars. Each section provides orders of battle for each war, and some additional information such as a brief overview, strengths, equipment used etc. Per the suggestion from buidhe, I have skipped over an initial run at A-Class. Look forward to the comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

• When I click on the 'hide' button, nothing happens. What's the point of it?

  They worked on my laptop, but did not display on my phone. I had hoped to keep the tables to allow readers to minimize them to help navigation, but that does seem to have worked. I have removed the tables entirely, and replaced each with a subsection. I have tested this on my laptop, and it looks a little funky compared to what I am use to seeing. However, the tweaks help with viewing on the phone. Thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "An order of battle is defined as" defined by who? Alternatively, the quote could be rephrased into wiki-voice
• "An order of battle was" but it is now? Why the past tense?
• "Elements of brigades or the brigade themselves could be changed, as could the adding or removing of divisional assets such as artillery. " not sure this sentence works-- could you tweak it or explain how it does
• " with the formation that was formed " Would it be possible to avoid a form of form twice in such close succession?

  I have made various tweaks to the lede with these four points in mind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Our article on the division says it was re-raised in the 1990s. Why no mention of this in the list article?

  Largely this is due to the lack of reliable sources that discuss the division's order of battle during the Cold War period through to the 2010s. So, with that in mind, I restricted the article to OOBs that would correspond with the wars the division fought in. I had wanted to avoid stating that outright, as similar language had been flagged as something that was not needed. However, I have added in an extra line on the end of the lede, based off your comment. Does this work? Or, suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• otherwise prose seems reasonable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lost track of this one. I'm satisfied to support Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Just dropping by to say ... I added some dashes per MOS. (I'm not positive about the dashes I added to the titles in the refs ... people used to insist on that per MOS, but maybe things have changed over time.) Hang in there ... things are a little slow right now at FLC for everyone. I'm more used to reviewing tables at FLC ... I'm unsure of what to do with this format, but as soon as you get another support, I'll come take another look and see if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I've been eliminated from the Wikicup, I'm more comfortable doing a half-baked review here (they tend to frown on those at the Wikicup). I'll be back when I'm finished preparing my next nom. I won't be doing a prose review ... my guess is that you won't need another prose review at this point, but if someone disagrees, you can always solicit one at Milhist. - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems in the References section (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine, and they add a lot to the page. (Disclaimer: I have no clue about copyright issues for insignia and flags, but I trust Parsecboy's review below.)
• 6. It is stable.
• I'm more used to working with tables at FLC, so I can't comment on formatting and structure, and I'm not comfortable doing a prose review here ... but that shouldn't be an issue here since you've got prose reviews already, and it should be easy to get another one if you need one.
• With those caveats ... Support, well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Be consistent with re-linking things after the lead, eg you do relink British Army but not division.

  I have made another pass, and added a few linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Any images that could be included to brighten up the volumes of text?

  I have added in several photos and paintings, but tried not to overwhelm with them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• During this period, ... during this period. - repetitive.

  Tweaked a thingsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalisation of "brigade" seems inconsistent.

  If I have not missed any examples, I believe all use of capital letters are when they are proper nouns. In the 1810–1811 section, for example, I have not opted for any capitals as the brigade were not called the "First Brigade" etc. at that point. During that period, they were named after the commander and the list of who they are is not complete, and it would duplicate a lot of info. If that is not the case, can you highlight what I have missed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2nd Division[13][14] - is this supposed to be a sub-heading?

  The article started off with tables, with the table title with the source info. When the tables were removed, I left the title name with the source. It was not intended to be a subheading. The various "2nd Division" could be removed and the sources duplicated after the brigade name? i.e. "The division's 1st brigade:^[1][2]" and "The division's 2nd brigade:^[1][2]" What would you advise?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "5/60th Regiment" same as "5th Battalion, 60th Regiment"?

  It is, and I have updated to include "5th Battalion"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.

  I believe I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "pp. 496 and 513" -> "pp. 496, 513"

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this article linked from the "Divisions of the British Army" template? I'm not seeing it and if not, the template shouldn't be there.

  Template removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]