Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2022

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 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the required critera given the fact that it follows the same strucutre of List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2010s in Romania, which already is a FL. Love editing on this topic and any comment is appreciated. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• My only major concern is that we are still less than a quarter of the way through the decade. It would be like if Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season had been nominated in June of that year. Maybe this isn't a problem, I don't know? I'll wait and see what other people think? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that this stems from featured list criteria #6: "...its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process". Weekly updates for the next 8 years might make it hard to ensure FL quality is maintained. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude:@RunningTiger123: Hey there. The only reason why I nominated this early is that not much would change to the article in 8 years. There will only be more number-one entries and there will be more statistics available on which radio station was the most popular per year etc. (also see List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2010s in Romania, an article which could've been nominated in 2014 since nothing significant changed until 2019). This can be easily updated and is not any significant change to the strucuture of the article that is already there. This chart list is not a topic like the Atlantic hurricane and will not have major changes in the future. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Artist(s) becomes !scope=col | Artist(s), and the other column headers are on their own lines with !scope=col in the same way.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the "This list is complete and up to date as of April 202" needed? Assuming it'll be updated monthly; if there's no updates it'll most likely just be given an ^{[needs update]} template. GeraldWL 02:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is used by several lists to show that they are up to date, so I think keeping it is not a bad thing. Can delete it, though, if you insist.

• "and five television channels" --> "as well as five television channels" to avoid repetition of "and"
• "As of 2022, around 40 singles"-- link singles

• No rows with the green key? Or is it there just in case there comes a number-one song? Either way is acceptable by the way, just need clarification.

There will most probably come an instance in the next years where this can be used, so I just placed it there for the moment :)

• The footnote C "Two songs tied for the number one position." shouldn't have a full stop per MOS:CAPFRAG

• In the first image, (member pictured) isn't really needed since the only person in that image is Dreams. Perhaps state when Dreams was pictured-- (pictured 2021)

Carla's Dreams is a band, and I think it is important for the reader to know that it is only one member of the band in the picture. The fact that they're anonaymous makes things even harder, so I think keeping it the way it stands now is the best option.

• ""Breaking Me" by Topic" --> ""Breaking Me" by Topic (pictured YEAR)"
• Same goes with the other images

Added that for Topic, thank you for pointing out, but years should only be added if pictures are significantly older or more into the future than the year the article's topic is in (which is not the case for any picture here).

• In ref 9 and ref 10, link Media Forest for consistency

Not linked in ref 9 because it is already linked. This is common practice to avoid overlinking.

• Ref 5, linked to Romanian-Insider, is detected as a marginal source, "Reliability depends on contributor or topic." Do you think it's a high-quality source here, and if no I suggest changing.

Given the fact that it only sources the non-controversial fact that Carla's Dreams is Moldovan, I think the ref is good enough to stay.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Hey there, thank you so much for your review! I have solved most of your comments and added some opinions here and there. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I have been extremely and somehow forgot about this lmao. But anyways, I support this FLC. Wish you the best! :) GeraldWL 05:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2022, around 40 singles each were listed" => "As of 2022, around 40 singles each have been listed"
• ""Breaking Me" by Topic and A7S spent an unprecedented 14 weeks as the most-broadcast single on radio stations" - "unprecedented" means that it was a new record, but this isn't true, because "Shoulda" by Jamie Woon spent 18 weeks at number one in 2012
• "as the most-broadcast tracks on radio and television respectively" - as only one number ("around 40)" is given, there is no reason for the word "respectively"
• "Media Forest also includes Moldovan artists such as Carla's Dreams and the Motans on the chart." - you may not be able to answer this (and it may not need mentioning anyway), but do you have any idea why this is? Essentially we seem to have a chart that is "for songs by Romanian artists only, except for some who aren't Romanian but we include them anyway", which is weird......
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Hey there! Yes I am but ooh, I must have forgotten to reply to the last comment. I'll do it later today. Thank you for the ping. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Hey there, thank you so much for your comments, I solved everything. Regarding your question: Romania and Moldova are kind of 'brothers'. The same language (Romanian) is spoken in both, and many Moldovan artists are based in Romania and have successful careers in both countries. That's basicaly why. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: - you haven't removed "respectively" as per my third point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: whoops, I somehow did not see that. Done it now. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has been stalled out for quite a while. I've looked it over, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 02:20, 30 July 2022 (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 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked and brought Angel Locsin's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating. I've reworked the list by adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Her own name in the table should sort under L, not A

How could I have missed this!! Thanks. Fixed now.

• "Darna (2005), Majika (2006), and Asian Treasures (2007),[4] the latter of which she was nominated" => "Darna (2005), Majika (2006), and Asian Treasures (2007),[4] for the latter of which she was nominated"

Done

• Presumably the Best Acting Ensemble in a Drama Series award was shared with some other people......?

That's correct, I removed mention in the lead, and instead added an explanatory footnote in the awards table that lists co-stars the award is shared.

• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and kind words ChrisTheDude, I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not gonna screw this up

• "her breakthrough role as the" — should it be "roles"?

I've reworded this bit, in conjunction with your second point.

• "for which she received" — for both productions or only one?

Yes the recognition was for both film and TV. I've reworded to specify as she receive the award "for her roles"

• "Further critical success came" — I don't think the list mentions any critical success prior to this, so the "further" kinda comes out of nowhere

You're right, fixed.

• For the result in listicles, is there any result she can get other than "placed"? If not, I would recommend removing this column...

No rankings were announced, just a list of awardees/recipients so I've removed.

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works in citations should be italicised

Done

• Check for MOS:QWQ issues within refs

Done

• ref 18's title is untranslated

Added trans-title and language parameter

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis, thank you for your review. I have addressed above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The source and author links for File:Angel Locsin.jpg are not working for me.

Unfortunately the original uploader's Picasa account might already be inactive. I could only find an archive link to the album, which I've updated. Hopefully that would suffice, as it seems the images in Commons with better resolutions came from this uploader.

Thank you for addressing my comment. The archive link is a perfect solution. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A majority of the lead has citations, except for three spots. The end of the lead's first, second, and third paragraphs should have citations.

Added the citations for each.

I hope my review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will support this FLC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your review Aoba47, I have addressed the above comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thank you for your support. Sure I’d be happy to have a look at your PR this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Per MOS:STRUCTURE, the see also section should probably go before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Giants2008, I have made the change (and will do for the earlier ones where I had done the same). Pseud 14 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

• There's a spaced hyphen in reference 54, should be en-dash per MOS.

Fixed

• Be consistent with the punctuation in the notes.

Added periods for all to be consistent

• "for which she received a Box Office Entertainment Award for her roles." the table says her "category" was "Princess of Philippine Movies & TV", was this an annual award or something special?

It actually is an annual award, there have been years where it was split and different individuals were recognized for TV and Movies. For that year though it was recognition for playing the same roles in both TV and film. The award organization is based on popularity and commercial excellence (box office returns/TV ratings) and only winners are announced. I guess the award name would fall under "category" in lieu of the usual competitive acting award.

• "for a Star Award for Best Drama Actress" link Star Award in the lead.

Linked

• "fledgling lycanthrope in" any reason we're not using the far more common "werewolf" term here?

Switched to "werewolf"

• "Critical success came..." I'm always wary of using just one source to cite "critical success". Probably needs a few to back this up.

Additional sources have been added that provide commentaries/critique of Locsin's performance.

Otherwise this is excellent and practically good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review TRM, I have actioned your comments and provided my responses. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:20, 30 July 2022 (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 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): NSNW (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is important to me. I am a loyal Indianapolis Colts fan and this draft saw the Colts select Andrew Luck to be their new quarterback ... only to ruin him so much that he retired seven years later. This is my first featured nomination for any type of content so if I don't understand something at first or need help fixing an issue please be patient with me. Best wishes! NSNW (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The table in this list is built with a template, so I've added an optional `caption` parameter to it; now you can add a visual caption by putting |caption=caption_text as a parameter of the {{NFLDraft-header}} template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Again, this list is using templates; I've added column scopes to the header template and row scopes to the row template, so it should be good to go now.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've completed the captions but I'm having trouble adding the column scopes, could you possibly help me with this? NSNW (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. NSNW (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Made some updates- you didn't need the colscopes on the templates (I made the change inside the template code itself), one table was missing a caption still, and the last table I had missed entirely so I just made the changes myself. --PresN 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• In the "Early entrants" section, "non-seniors" is linked on the second usage, not the first
• "Prior to the 2012 draft, six out of the previous seven first-overall draft selections have been players who have entered the draft early" - tense is wrong, it should be "Prior to the 2012 draft, six out of the previous seven first-overall draft selections had been players who had entered the draft early"
• There are still two images with fixed pixel sizes - remove the fixed sizes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All done. NSNW (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done. The first two images beside the table still have fixed pixel sizes, which need to be removed. You need to remove the "185x185px" from the end of the Luck image and the "194x194px" from the end of the Tannehill image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be fixed now, for some reason a previous edit removing the pixel sizes didn't go through properly. NSNW (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any other comments that need to be made? It's been 20 days. NSNW (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to the FLC process, so feedback and comments on my review are appreciated. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

• "to select newly eligible American football players." Select them for what? Perhaps, "to select newly eligible American football players for their teams." or something similar
• "and never showed the same ability since" -> "and struggled to regain his ability"?
• "and never showed the same ability since, Griffin would later be released by the Redskins after the 2015 season." Replace the comma with a semi-colon.
• "The draft was highly regarded for its quarterback talent, with six out of the eleven quarterbacks selected (Luck, Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, and Kirk Cousins) making at least one Pro Bowl." I want to tighten up this language a little bit, and replace the verb "making" with a more descriptive word to help describe what the Pro Bowl is (without needed to click on the link). Perhaps, "The draft was highly regarded for its quarterback talent; six out of the eleven quarterbacks selected (Luck, Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, and Kirk Cousins) were chosen to play in at least one Pro Bowl."
• "At the same time the draft also had several notable quarterbacks who are now regarded as draft busts." Delete "At the same time" as it is unnecessary
• "in NFL history at 28 years old after being selected by" -> "in NFL history at 28 years old when he was selected by"
• "making him Mr. Irrelevant for 2012." -> "causing him to be dubbed Mr. Irrelevant for 2012."
• "The draft was held between April 26, 2012 through April 28, 2012." Replace "between" with "to", as this will make it more grammatically correct.
• "For each player selected in the supplemental draft," -> "For each player selected in this draft," to tighten up the language,

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. NSNW (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments that need to be made? NSNW (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "April 26, 2012, to April 28, 2012" not sure you need the year each time!
• "regular selections and 32 compensatory selections" "compensatory selections" probably needs a footnote to explain what it means.
  • Would an abbr or wikilink be fine? NSNW (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "worst record in the 2011 season with a 2–14 record," put "season" inside the pipe link, and avoid repeating "record" so rapidly.
  • Reworded. NSNW (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "record 26 draft prospects attended the draft" again, draft is on quick repeat here.
• "around quarterback prospect" link QB.
• Is there an appropriate article for an NFL "general manager"?
• " draft Luck.[11] Luck was" etc etc, Luck is repeated quite a few times here.
• "Griffin III. Griffin III was" repetitive.
• "MVP of Super Bowl LII" links for both.
• "Cousins is currently ranked" see WP:CURRENTLY.
• "28 years old.. " one too many periods.
• "were both quarterbacks and were" why link QB here??!!
• "causing him to be dubbed Mr. Irrelevant" by whom?
  • It's a humorous nickname given to the last player selected in the draft. It was coined in 1976 by the "Mr. Irrelevant" for that year, Paul Salata. No specific person explicitly gives it out as an award. I wikilinked the term in the article and cited another source talking about it's history if that helps as well. NSNW (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "List of 2012 NFL draft early entrants" why is the d of draft not capitalised as it is here?
  • It should be capitalized. I quickly glossed over similar lists of early entrants and they are inconsistent in whether or not the "D" in draft is capitalized or not. I didn't make the list nor do I know who did, but the NFL Draft articles are consistent in the "D" being capitalized. NSNW (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "which matched the record set in the previous draft" not cited.
• Supplemental draft table being sortable is odd with just one single entry.
  • I believe there is no way to make it not sortable as it's a NFL draft header template; checked it myself and I haven't found a way to do so. NSNW (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Spaced hyphens in all the notes should be en-dashes.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man. All should be done now. NSNW (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: this is my first FL review, so I'm still learning how to do this. From the lead:

• ""Suck for Luck" campaigns by fans, hoping that their teams" -> ""Suck for Luck" campaigns by fans, who hoped that their teams"
• "He was successful with the Colts, but dealt with several injuries throughout his career and decided to retire in 2018 after winning the NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award and still in his prime." -> The "and still in his prime" feels like an add-on when the sentence is phrased this way. Perhaps something like "He was successful with the Colts, but dealt with several injuries throughout his career and decided to retire in 2018 while still in his prime, after winning the NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award."
• "However, Griffin would suffer an injury during the postseason that same year and struggled to show the same level of play since;" the tense changes halfway through the sentence here.
• "A rare occurrence happened when the first and final picks in the draft were both quarterbacks and were taken by the same team. Chandler Harnish was chosen with the final pick of the draft by the Colts, causing him to be dubbed Mr. Irrelevant for 2012." I think these would work better as a single sentence, given both relate to Harnish.
• "considered one of the best all-time with numerous prospects" I presume this is meant to say "best of all time"?

Other than that, this is great. Feel free to ping me when you've finished with these. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YttriumShrew I believe all of your concerns I have fixed. NSNW (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support YttriumShrew (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 21 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, and Didelphimorphia), with another in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 23 species of Scandentia, or treeshrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent, but are instead closer to primates. These little mammals are native to the forests and jungles of southeast Asia, especially the islands of Maritime Southeast Asia, and all look fairly similar, though do note the painted treeshrew, which really does look like it was dropped in a bucket of red paint. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Bornean smooth-tailed treeshrew, at 11 cm (4 in) plus a 9 cm (4 in) tail, to the striped treeshrew, at 23 cm (9 in) plus a 13 cm (5 in) tail" - pedantically, are they all really around a "similar" size given that the larger of these two examples has a body more than twice as long as the former.......?
• This might also be highly pedantic, but is there any nuance intended in the use of "Insects and fruit" versus "Insects as well as fruit", or is that just a way of mixing up the language a bit?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Hmm, so I'm coming from the out-of-article perspective that 4 to 9 inches is a small range compared to a range e.g. 4 inches to 3 feet- for mammals, it's a small range, though you have a point that in-article the biggest is twice as long as the smallest. Reworded to remove the "similar".
• The nuance is that "insects as well as fruit" means they (according to the source) primarily eat insects, but also eat fruit, while "insects and fruit" means that they (according to the source) eat both without wording indicating one is more primary. --PresN 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking both Scandentia and treeshrews in the lead is redundant since both point to the same page and are unlikely to be split
• For maps, it would be better for the description pages to cite specific pages instead of the general IUCN Red List link

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: Sorry for the wait- was out of the country. Now done; wish the uploader had linked the actual source, but oh well. --PresN 18:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I don't see any prose problems. There are no sortable columns. 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are to high-quality reliable sources, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Everything passes in this department. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – One small issue in this regard: the image description for the pen-tailed treeshrew indicates that a U.S. public domain tag is still needed. It looks like the image was published in a pre-1927 book, so it should be easy enough to add a tag for this. Other than that point, the photos have appropriate free licenses and alt text, and sources are provided in the descriptions for the graphs. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Done, thanks! --PresN 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With that done, I'd say the image review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (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, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1981 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Just the first table is missing a table caption. In the "Performers" table, "People Alone" is sorting before Orchestral.
• The 2nd, 6th and 7th images in the multiple image template are missing alt text.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dank: I've fixed the remaining issues from your comments up above.

--Birdienest81talk 05:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The ceremony was originally scheduled the day before" => "The ceremony was originally scheduled for the day before"? Current wording could be interpreted as the Academy only scheduling it (confirming when it would take place) the day before
• "The nominees for the 53rd Academy Awards were announced on February 17, 1981, by" - can't see any reason for a comma after the date
  • Chris, see MOS:DATE, at "September 2, 2001". - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: ah, it's specific to the US date format. Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the festivities would be posted to the following day" - unless this is an unusual US English usage of which I am unaware, surely that should say "postponed".....?
• "whether or not to televise pre-recorded remarks from Reagan [...] giving remarks" - any way to re-word to avoid this repetition?
• "an unnamed man later identified as Hungarofilm general manager Istvan Dosai came upstage" - I would imagine that should say "on stage" rather than "upstage", unless he was already standing on the stage, which from the context seems unlikely
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done - I've addressed your comments by making adjustments based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 06:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Norman Jewison should be linked in lead
• Missing dash for Confidence nomination
• Is Unsworth's posthumous nom supported by a source?
• Capitalizing "Visual Effects" feels odd
• Ref. 29 (McCabe) seems to have the wrong date
• Ref. 32 (Boyer) appears to misspell "Lowest"
• ABC should not be linked again in Ratings section
• "with 31% of households watching with a 58% share" – two uses of "with" in the same sentence is awkward

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: Done - I've addressed your comments and made a few corrections based off of them. Birdienest81talk 11:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are high-quality reliable sources and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Everything checks out okay in this area. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:29, 15 July 2022 (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, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 10th FLC of a list of number ones on the antecedent of Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop chart. In this particular year one of the chart-toppers was a track which is now regarded as one of the contenders for the title of "first ever rock and roll record"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "Black Night"
• "the longest unbroken spell at number one" – maybe clarify that this was the longest streak that year (presumably) instead of all-time?
• In the table, "'T' 99 Blues" appears to have an extra apostrophe – either it should be removed or every other occurrence should have this apostrophe
  • Note that the apostrophe also affects sorting order in the table
• "The Glory of Love" should sort by "Glory"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• and pianist Charles Brown[3] -- I think you can invoke this citation at the end of the sentence.
• I would move Ref4 to the end of the last sentence in the second para
• That's all from me. Could not find anything else to quibble, another well-written piece! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - those AllMusic refs were citing the descriptions of the musicians ("ballad singer and pianist Charles Brown" and "pioneering doo-wop group") and don't cover the remainder of each sentence (the bits about their runs at number one, which are covered by the table) hence why I put the refs where I did, but I guess it's no big deal where exactly they go..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Looks good and thanks for the clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• The first paragraph feels a little dense to me, but I don't see any errors. I'm not doing much prose reviewing these days ... I'm having some health issues and I'm not sure that I'm still up to the task, but FLC generally requires at least three supports, and I think you're in good hands here, so I'll leave it alone. I can still make a useful contribution here, I hope; there's a lot of grunt work involved in a review that mostly requires familiarity with the process.
• The table needs a caption. I added a table caption.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One more thing ... I do have one recommendation that would move the last part of the first sentence into the second sentence (although, if you do this, the second sentence might then need to be either shortened or divided up into two sentences ... your call). You have "In 1951, Billboard magazine published two charts specifically covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres: Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, based on sales in stores and plays in jukeboxes respectively. The two charts are considered ...": I prefer "In 1951, Billboard magazine published Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, two charts covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres. The charts, one based on sales in stores and the other on plays in jukeboxes, are considered ...". It's a tiny change, but I think it would help for two reasons: 1. Readers, especially those who aren't familiar with the subject matter, need all the help they can get to quickly figure out what the article is about so that they can start to put the information you're giving them into context. Shorter first sentences are easier to digest (if they can be shortened without violating some other rule); also, "Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records" is really helpful in understanding what the article is about, so the sooner you say that, the better. 2. Human short-term memory is actually quite small, so it's always best to answer questions raised by the text as soon as possible (in this case, "which two charts are you talking about?"), especially in the first sentence. I'm not saying that this is easy, there are always opposing considerations ... but it's desirable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - sounds reasonable - changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references used are all to high-quality reliable sources, are well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:29, 15 July 2022 (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, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest list of number ones on the antecedent of Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop chart. This particular year saw the final appearance in the top spot of Louis Jordan after 18 number ones in less than 8 years. Nowadays probably only blues afficionados know his name, but back in the late 1940s he was the Drake or Kanye of his day :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• in rhythm and blues and related African-American-oriented.. --as you did with the 1948 FL, add enclosure of (R&B)
• second long-running number one --is it longest-running or was this meant to be a variation for longest-running? If it's the latter I think it's fine too.
• That's all from me. Another excellently written work in your series!--Pseud 14 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - both points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs" our article hyphenates Hip-Hop in this formal title.
• "his 18th and final chart-topper" and "tally of 18 chart-toppers" feels repetitive, perhaps there's an elegant re-word opportunity here?
• When I see "but his music is considered to have been hugely influential " and see a single reference I guess I'm mildly disappointed. Is there more than just one individual reporting this?
• You know what, I wonder if at some point we'll need to link juke box? I don't know if this generation of millennials know what that even means!
• "the highest total achieved" could you say "the most achieved"?
• I guess you're using Nat "King" Cole with "King" in quotes as that was his contemporaneous billing?
• Any reason Tympany Five isn't linked in the table?
• Similar to Cole above, I assume you have "Mistrusting Blues" because that's how it was listed at the time, as opposed to our own article which declares it to be "Mistrustin' Blues"?
• Is Note [a] referenced anywhere?

No other issues, worked hard to find problems! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - many thanks for you review, all addressed now I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "record which would stand until the 1980s" --> which stood until
• "record which would still stand in the 21st century" same thing
• Should Blue Light Boogie be linked in the lead?
• "each achieved more than one number one" seems a little clunky? Maybe change to "multiple number ones".
• Are the quotation marks needed in Nat "King" Cole?
• Should Trio be capitalized? I notice that isn't done in Nat King Cole.

Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @HAL333: - many thanks for your review. First four all addressed, the quote marks in "King" Cole and capitalisation of Trio are consistent with contemporary sources (ie Billboard) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – No surprises here: the sources are all reliable and well-formatted, with no errors detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:29, 15 July 2022 (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, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 04:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list since I expanded and improved this list at the parent article, and I created this page to 74 nominations and above 50k bytes. I appreciate that the parent article and its soundtrack respectively promoted to featured and good articles by Wingwatchers recently, so this list goes to featured status. Chompy Ace 04:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are discrepancies between the infobox and list. The list shows 13 wins from 69 total nominations by my count, but the infobox total says 15 wins/74 nominations, and the full list in the infobox totals to 15 wins/72 nominations.
• Rotten Tomatoes data should be updated (currently at 77% from 336 reviews)
• "The film won one of six nominations at the 49th Annie Awards." – incorrect
• "Various critic circles have also picked it as the best animated feature film of the year." – I couldn't find any critics' groups in the list that gave it an award for "Best Animated Film", so this statement is unsupported.
• "Peter Del Vecho" should sort by "Del Vecho", not "Vecho"
• It might be worth mentioning that it set the record for largest opening weekend for an animated film.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123:  Done all but the sixth point since  Guinness World Records (RSP entry) is recognized as "marginally reliable" at WP:RSP, so it will not count on the film's awards. Chompy Ace 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123? Chompy Ace 07:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the first ping, I don't know why I wasn't notified. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I won't screw this up

• The citations in the middle of sentence impair readability a bit; perhaps they could be moved to the end of sentences or after the nearest punctuation?
• "also writing the screenplay and conceiving the story with Buck" — was she both writing the screenplay and conceiving the story with all these people or only conceiving the story?
• "the film stars Kristen Bell" — to me, "stars" implies live-action; perhaps "stars the voices of"?

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis:  Done all at Special:PermanentLink/1095358490 Chompy Ace 22:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis? As of Special:PermanentLink/1095616475, you take another look at it? I have clarified the second point based on List of accolades received by The Big Short (film) with a note for Lee. Chompy Ace 11:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For some reason, I didn't get the first ping; imma go ahead and support this. Pamzeis (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are well-formatted throughout and the link-checker doesn't reveal any issues. Regarding reliability, I have one concern: what makes Next Best Picture (refs 31, 32, 52, 56, and 61) a reliable source? The site itself says that it is a blog, a category of website that normally isn't considered reliable enough for featured content purposes. I'd suggest finding replacements for these links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: same here at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Encanto (film)/archive2, in which this passes the source review, saying "

  No issues with the reliability of any sources—I had a look at the NextBestPicture and Cinema Daily US websites and journalists (previously unfamiliar to me) and am satisfied that each is reliable for the claim they are cited for." Chompy Ace 23:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Giants2008:  Done at Special:Diff/1096992788. Chompy Ace 00:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The references I commented on have been replaced/removed. With that, I'd say my source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Beale Street Could Talk is a 2018 American romantic drama film directed and written by Barry Jenkins. Based on James Baldwin's novel of the same name, it follows a young African-American woman who, with her family's support, seeks to clear the name of her wrongly charged husband and prove his innocence before the birth of their child. The film's cast includes KiKi Layne, Stephan James, Colman Domingo, Teyonah Parris, Michael Beach, Dave Franco, Diego Luna, Pedro Pascal, Ed Skrein, Brian Tyree Henry and Regina King. The film was nominated for three Academy Awards at the 2019 ceremony and won the award for Best Supporting Actress. This is my seventh film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, Dunkirk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing, nothing at all. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I will not screw this up

• "performance as Sharon Rivers" — my first thought was: "who the hell is she?" I mean, I think that sums it up pretty well... but she isn't brought up prior to this, so mentioning her name does not really add anything (at least for me it doesn't)
• Most titles of works are italicised in citations, but some aren't, e.g. Green Book in ref 62
• Check for MOS:QWQ issues within refs

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pamzeis: - Done: I have read your comments and made the necessary corrections based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 19:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You don't need/want them on other cells in the row- so e.g. ! scope="row" rowspan="5"|[[Alliance of Women Film Journalists]] is the right cell, but you don't also need the | scope="row" rowspan="5"| January 10, 2019 right after it, that should just be | rowspan="5"| January 10, 2019. Also, for the "rows" where the primary cell spans multiple actual rows with a rowspan—which appears to be all of them—it should be using scope="rowgroup", e.g. ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="5"|[[Alliance of Women Film Journalists]].
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: - Done: I have read your comments and made the appropriate adjustments based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 09:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have made some small copy-edits, which you are free to revert if you don't like. I don't have any other comments of my own but do address Pamzeis's concerns though. FrB.TG (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Refs 25 and 26 are formatted differently but are the same site. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• No issues Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pass for source review, with the expectation that the above comment will be addressed

• @Aza24: Done - I linked the first mention of Black Reel Awards and delinked the last mention in the references. It should be consistent now.

--Birdienest81talk 12:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "directed and written" feels like an odd order, usually I see "written and directed"?
• "her wrongly charged husband" should wrongly-charged be hyphenated in this usage?
• " $20.6 million" etc, non-breaking spaces before "million" each time please.
• Last sentence of lead is unreferenced which seems odd considering most of the rest of the lead is (although in several cases, unnecessarily).
• Ref 7 has a spaced hyphen, make it an en-dash per MOS please.

Otherwise is good work, cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: - Done: I've read your comments, and have made corrections and adjustments based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 06:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The article has one image, which has an appropriate free license and suitable alt text. This aspect of the page looks okay to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:20, 6 July 2022 (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) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romania has nine WH sites and 15 sites on the tentative list. This time, several interesting old towns and churches, and beautiful nature. The style is standard. Bulgaria's list is seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is the first one of these lists to come to FLC where I have actually been to one of the locations listed :-)
• Transylvanian Saxons linked twice, don't think it needs to be
• "They have since lived in the region for over 850 years" - no need for the word since
• "to include forests in total of 18 countries" => "to include forests in a total of 18 countries"
• "Roșia Montană is located in the western part of Romanian Carpathians" => "Roșia Montană is located in the western part of the Romanian Carpathians"
• "Curtea de Argeș was the old capital of the Wallachia" => "Curtea de Argeș was the old capital of Wallachia"
• "The Church of st. Nicholas" => "The Church of St. Nicholas"
• "in from the 10th to the 12th centuries" => "from the 10th to the 12th centuries"
• "The Alba Carolina Citadel, a start fort" - what's a "start fort"?
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Fixed, thanks! I am usually linking some items more than once, in case different sorting on columns is used, someone suggested this approach a while ago. Tone 09:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah, I forgot it's a sortable table. In that case all good - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

• Support. AryKun (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19 has a space hyphen, should be en-dash.
• "added to the list was ..., added to the list " repetitive.
• "fish species. Important species" repetitive.
• "village of Biertan (pictured) was added" well, the church is pictured, and we'd normally put it as (pictured). I would format that for all the other instances.
  • I'm usually not making them italic, as I am sometimes making full sentences, such as "The church is pictured", and it would be kind of inconsistent.
• "is among the best examples of this style" according to...? Could just say that UNESCO considers it to be "a masterpiece".
• No need to link terms like "Germans".
• "Six fortresses that" -> "The six fortresses that..."
• "oppidum that " comma after oppidum.
• "1133quater" what does qater mean?
  • This indicates that the site has been extended. Bis, ter, quater mean that it was expanded at one, two, or three occasions. I think the forests is the only site that has been expanded that many times.
• "sfârșit), pictured.[22]" be consistent with the formatting here.
• "No description is provided in the nomination documentation" You could write your own description. The heading is just "description", not "description by UNESCO in nomination documentation".
  • True. I did it for Sanpetru, where it was obvious that it is a fossil deposit. For the other two, I don't want to guess on the outstanding universal value that is the criterion for UNESCO. It could be the geology, flora and fauna, some structures, etc. I prefer to leave it out because my guess could be wrong. I'd avoid the footnote because that would let the entire box empty bar the footnote.
• Like you have done for "Sânpetru Formation". And move the "no description..." text to a reused footnote for the three to which it applies.

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 21:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was busy, I'll get to it shortly. Give me a couple of days, please. Tone 06:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Done, thanks! Some replied above inline. --Tone 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "it was immediately placed to the list of World Heritage in Danger" placed in.
• "though the community is decreasing in numbers due to emigration in modern times." This understates the importance of the emigration. The citation says that the site preserves evidence of a culture which is disappearing due to emigration.
• "They are representative examples of the two types of forts of Late Iron Age Europe, the hilltop fort and the oppidum, that evolved from it" This is unclear on two counts. It implies that these are the only two types of forts, which is not what the citation says, and it is not clear what the final "it" refers to. I cannot find a wholly satisfactory wording, but how about "They are representative examples of two characteristic types of forts of Late Iron Age Europe, the hilltop fort and its successor which evolved from it, the oppidum."
• "extended in 2017 to list 12 properties". "properties" is an odd word to describe areas of forest (although I realise that the whole site is described as a property). I thinks "area" would be better.
• "A culă (plural: cule; from Turkish kule "tower, turret") is a semi-fortified building found in the Oltenia (also known as Lesser Wallachia) region. They were built to watch important routes and were used by greater and lesser nobility." As the second sentence is in the plural, the first should be as well.
• "Since 1366, the town was known as Hermannstadt". "has been known as". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dudley Miles Fixed, thank you! Tone 06:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:44, 7 July 2022 (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, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of all of the chess grandmasters who have spent the last year being called the "real-life Beth Harmon". Not anyone can be called a "Grandmaster". FIDE formally established the Grandmaster (GM) title in 1950, and not long after, set up formal criteria for how a player can obtain the title. To be awarded the title today, players need to be rated at a GM level, and to have a GM performance at three tournaments. A disproportionate number of featured lists seem to be on various sport topics, but none of them are on chess. Feedback is welcome! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead says that winners of the Women's World Championship have become Grandmasters since "no later than 2003", but the body says this happened "at some point before 2006" – which is it?
  • Fixed. It's 2003. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest moving links in birth date column to references for consistency across all individuals; this also allows the information to source other cells in that row
  • Moved the applications to their own column. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Peak rating links can stay where they are
• Split WWC column into two columns (start and end) – if needed, place "WWC" in a separate row above the two, like so:

• Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Monika Soćko should sort by last name
  • Fixed, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Final row of "By country" table should not be sorted – see Help:Sorting#Excluding final rows from sorting for how to fix this
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest archiving sources using IABot here
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I really like this list – there's a lot of interesting context instead of simply listing the individuals. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this looks good, but I'm curious as to why the "Title app" column was added. Those links would be better as citations in the existing references column. (Placing them in citations also allows IABot to archive the links.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to keep the applications separate from the other references. Otherwise, it's a lot harder to tell which players have their applications available and which do not. Besides being inline refs, they also have the information on each players' norms, which is directly associated with the information in the table, but wouldn't really fit directly in the table itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some oddities to the table format. Some rows have refs in the last column, others do not. Some have the date of birth directly link to an external source, others do not, and some have both. Are the xlinks on the DOBs intended to serve as refs? If so, why not just put them in the refs column? Also, I checked the direct xlink on the DOB of Olga Girya and ironically it does not mention her date of birth anywhere, so that element of her row is unsourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the external links are also intended to serve as refs. RunningTiger123 commented on something similar. I replied there. Also, I added ref's for Girya's DOB and a few others that were missing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for the main table, but not the Key table, so you can just change e.g. |Name to !scope=row |Name
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – The years listed for the books in refs 6 and 50 differ from the years in the full book cites. Keane & Levy is listed as 1976 in ref 6 and 1970 in the full cite, while Tanner is given as 2016 in ref 50 and the extended cite says it's from 1998. Those should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "After missing a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided" - it was not FIDE that missed the norm, so this should be worded as "After she missed a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided"
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Koneru Humpy (right) was the first to break Judit Polgar's record as the youngest female GM." - she was the only one to break Polgar's record, not the first, as after that it wasn't Polgar's record to break any more
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Judit Polgar's record as the overall youngest GM had only lasted three years" - seems strange to mention this for the first time here and without any context as to exactly when/how she lost the record
  • Moved this part to the previous section and rephrased. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined the Polgar sisters as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title" - not technically accurate, as there are three Polgar sisters, not a pair
  • Rephrased to Susan and Judit Polgar. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "While the number of female Grandmasters has continued to steadily increase, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010" - I don't understand this. The number of new female GMs has both steadily increased and peaked? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
  • Changed to "While there have continued to be more female Grandmasters, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010." Is that clearer? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely the peak year was 2008, when there were five awards.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't thinking about it in terms of a single year, but more like a range of five or six years from 2006 to 2011. The quote from the article is "...by the 1990s women were starting to reach grandmaster level. But by the end of the 2000s, this catching up seems to have plateaued". I didn't want to say it that way because I thought 2000s could be easy to confuse as the century not the decade. I had wrote "around 2010", but I just changed it to "approaching 2010" to better capture that it was towards the end of the decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a Soviet chess player from Georgia" — suggesting to link Georgia (country)
  • Generally, we don't link countries in the prose (see MOS:OVERLINK). It is linked in the list itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you leave to link soviet Union, I'll still suggest Georgia to be linked. It is not a very widely known country, and may be confused with the US state of Georgia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linked to Georgian SSR. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• link "Soviet Union" in the Background section as well.
  • Same as above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "was not considered as she had already been killed in World War II" → "was not considered because of her death during World War II"
  • Changed "as" to "because". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953. These criteria included" → "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953, which included"
  • I think the sentence would be too long (and have too many clauses) if I combine them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upto you, but I feel that these two sentenced don't flow particularly well, as 'criteria' is being repeated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "No earlier than 1977," → In 1977
  • It's not necessarily 1977. It might have been 1977, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "established herself as the" → "became the"
  • I used "established" because it was something she had to prove over time, not so much a well-defined position. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should not be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. To me, 'established' reads bit like news articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to "was". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "to be competitive against" → "to be compete against"?
  • This doesn't mean the same thing. "competitive" means something "can win against" or "can get good results against", whereas "compete" just means that "she played against" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The epitome of her success" — according to whom? We'll need attribution as to who considers it her "epitome"
  • The book uses the phrase "zenith of her career". I think this is a widely held opinion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it is a widely held opinion, we should no be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Something like "It is widely believed that the epitome of her success came in 1977 ..." would be better. But, for that, we'll need at-least 2-3 sources supporting that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a link to her own interview, and rephrased to "Her most notable tournament result". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed this again to "At the 1977 Lone Pine International after about 15 years as Women's World Champion" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "midst more rule changes that may have made it more difficult for her to obtain the title in the future" — what change did they make in the rules?
  • The source doesn't say. It just says that the impending rule changes played a role. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "and demonstrated that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age." — WP:POV ... we'll need attribution as to whose opinion is this
  • Which part do you think is POV? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire part. There are quite a few sentences in this article which have opinion written as facts in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, Polgar sisters winning GM title is a fact, but their success demonstrating "that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age" is an opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rephrased to "began fulfilling the requirements for the Grandmaster title from a relatively young age". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "At the age of 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days" — do we need to be so specific?
  • Switched to month precision. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the next century saw a substantial influx of new female Grandmasters" — suggesting to rephrase a bit more neutrally
  • Changed "substantial" to "much larger". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their" → "In 2003, FIDE changed their"
  • It's not necessarily 2003. It might have been 2003, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Elo rating system" — pipe 'system' in the link
  • I think this is an issue with the other article. It should really be called just "Elo rating". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Name : Player's name", "Birth date : Player's birth date", "Age : Player's current age", etc. — I'd expect that reader already knows what those terms mean.
  • I agree, but it's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, of all those terms explaining the headers, only "Title date", "Peak rating", and "Title app" need to be explained. That doesn't need a separate table. Those 3/4 headers can have a footnote against them to be more specifically explained. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree. You also need to explain that "Federation" is the current one (plus an explanation for the notes), why "Award year" can have a different year than "Title date", that "Title age" is based on the title date and not the award year, and "WWC" wouldn't be clear without explanation (and same for the notes). That's 7/11 that need explanation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The references in the table should be center aligned
  • Is that a requirement? I don't think it would be consistent with the rest of the table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if there is any guideline, but this is a well established precedent among featured lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see if anyone else wants to comment on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref#6 and Ref#50 doesn't point to any citation
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• norms, Elo rating, FIDE rating, performance rating : these terms are linked twice in the prose.
  • These are confusing terms, and I feel like they are important enough that they need to be linked in the sections where the reader needs to understand them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempts made for fixing few of my comments. I stay neutral on promotion of this article as a featured list. There are yet few places where I think the prose should be more neutral. It is a really interesting topic, and thanks a lot for your work here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No copyright issues with File:The President, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam presenting Padma Shri to Kumari Koneru Humpy (Chess), at an Investiture Ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi on March 23, 2007.jpg, File:Anna Muzychuk 2011.jpg, File:Tatiana Kosintseva.jpg, File:HouYifan.jpg, or File:Ju Wenjun (2016.09) (cropped) 2.jpg
• When there isn't any evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Sofia, Judit, Susan Polgar sisters.jpg, File:2019-Zhansaya-Abdumalik (cropped).JPG, and File:Arakhamia grant rd6 4thEUIO (A).JPG are in fact the uploaders' own works
• I'm not sure what to say about File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982 (cropped).jpg when that and File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982.jpg just seem to loop back and forth to one another as file sources
  • It's also an uploader's own work, like the ones in the previous point. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I wish they said so in the file description SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does state the author in the description. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe there's something I missed (I admittedly am a native English speaker who grasps very little of the Russian language without a translator), but the given URL for File:Alexandra Goryachkina Satka 2018.jpg doens't seem to say anything on image licensing
  • It's at the bottom: "CONTENT IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 3.0 LICENSE". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for mentioning this :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• From "21st century", you don't have any citations for "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their regulations and began awarding the GM title to players who win the Women's World Championship if they are not already GMs. Since then, four players have obtained the GM title in this manner, most recently Tan Zhongyi in 2017. The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined Susan and Judit Polgar as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title. Irina Krush was the first player from outside Europe or Asia to be awarded the title in 2013."
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For more consistency with date formats used within citations, I recommend converting birthdates into DMY format
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Get rid of the flag icons per WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use when they above all else come off as decorative
  • I think it falls under "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my comments are helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• SNUGGUMS, thanks for the review! Replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sure thing, I just don't see what benefit the flag icons provide. In any case, image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Sportsfan77777 as a reminder to address the icons. If you insist on keeping those, then please elaborate on how exactly they would "aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to look at the information for all of the players from a specific country in the context of the list as a whole (sorted by a different column), the flags will help you find all of the players from that country. You could sort by federation, but then you lose the context of the rest of the list. You could switch back-and-forth, but I personally find that annoying and easy to lose track of things. Hence, it improves navigation (which in turn helps the reader's comprehension). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well. With no other issues found, I support this nomination for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As "Grandmaster" is a formal title, and we shouldn't be confusing it with "Woman Grandmaster", I would respectfully suggest the list is moved to "List of female chess Grandmasters". Indeed, that would then beg the question, is "chess" even required in the title, is it ambiguous?
  • That's a good point. I did consider both of those things when creating the article. My main rationale for not capitalizing was to copy List of chess grandmasters. I will ask them about their rationale. I think "chess" is necessary because Grandmaster is a disambiguation term. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got a quick reply that I think is correct. They referred to MOS:JOBTITLES, in which it is not one of the capitalized cases for two reasons: it is preceded by a modifier (or rather two modifiers: "female chess"), and also along the same lines of what I elaborate on below with regard to the abbreviations. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Judit Polgár has a diacritic which appears to be missing in the lead/caption.
  • I think that's an issue with the other article. (Neither of her sisters' articles use the diacretic in the title.) I'll see if I can get that article moved to remove the diacritic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at more sources, the diacretic is more common than I thought, so I'm backtracking on that and made the change to Judit Polgár as you suggested. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You abbreviate Grandmaster to GM immediately but then immediately don't use that abbreviation in the following sentence(s)...
  • It's common to use both the full term and the abbreviation depending on the situation. (There is a difference in that when you see "GM", you would read it as "GEE-EM" instead of the full term.) For example, when you are referring to "Grandmasters" in general, you would probably write out the full term. As another example, "GM norm" is always abbreviated. I aimed to be consistent with different types of usage. There were a few situations where I wasn't sure what the preference would be, and mostly just tried to re-word so as to avoid those cases. Were there any instances you were concerned about in particular? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, having just looked at Shahade's new book, I'm going to double back on this and say the only time it is correct to use the capitalized term Grandmaster is when referring to the "Grandmaster title", which can be abbreviated by as the GM title. When referring to a player with the GM title, it is correct to refer to them as a "grandmaster" in lowercase. That would also answer your question about the title of the article in that lowercase would be correct because it is referring to players with the Grandmaster title and not the Grandmaster title itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extending on that, I made it more consistent by always writing out "Grandmaster title" in the prose, and now mainly only just abbreviating for "GM norm". I left a few instances where it is more convenient to abbreviate in the key and the image captions. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950. " and was open to both men and women?
  • I think so (or rather, there were no specific restrictions on that). Do you think that's worth clarifying? I was hoping that would be clear from stating the reason why Menchik wasn't awarded the title. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Since no later than 2003" I don't follow but I am tired. Do you mean just "Since 2003"?
  • I don't know the exact year. I have the FIDE handbook from 2003 that shows the rule was in place then, but I don't have the previous handbooks, so it could have been earlier. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "in large part by" -> " largely by" or "mostly by"?
  • Changed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "were a mere six female Grandmasters" instead of "mere" how many male GMs were there?
  • The point I wanted to make was that the raw number has increased (as in "mere" relative to the current women's total, not the overall total back then). The number relative to the overall total has always been roughly constant, or at least it never increased to a significant percentage (as it states in the body of the article). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of 2021, all female...." it's now 2022...
  • Updated. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950" vs "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953" doesn't seem to tie up.
  • They declared various people Grandmasters in 1950, but there was no reason why certain players received the title. (It was related to who they thought was a top player, but there was no criteria of how they determined that until 1953.)
• FIDE and Elo rating system link to the same article. Probably need a footnote here explaining why the same target is linked via different pipes.
  • They should be separate articles. I will get around to moving it soon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "and just the second" remove "just".
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "women still make up a small fraction of the total" could be specific here.
  • Changed to "no more than a few percent of the total". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "obtain the Grandmaster (GM) title" you don't need to show us the abbreviation again at this late point in the article...
  • Removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "minimum FIDE rating of 2500" overlinked.
  • I wanted to include it here because I think the term is much more relevant to this section than the previous one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "using an Elo rating system, which" ditto.
  • I'll separate the FIDE rating and Elo rating articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "7/9 against 2380-rated opponents, 6½/9 " suddenly struck me that the 7/9 and 6½/9 is completely alien and unexplained. Suggest a footnote or something to explain chess scoring.
  • I added a note to say "7 points in 9 games". Normally, for the chess GAs I've written, I would also put "A win is worth 1 point, a draw is worth a ½ point, and a loss is worth 0 points.", but I didn't do that here because that is covered by the previous note. I could repeat it if you prefer that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table, why under Federation aren't you linking the actual federation (e.g. Hungarian Chess Federation) rather than just the country?
  • I think the point is to list the country associated with the federation. (I could change the key to clarify that?) Not all of the federations have articles, and most of the ones that do aren't very good (i.e. very brief, and either stub-class or start-class). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't see any good reason to abbreviate the dates, the table isn't that wide and it looks clumsy and archaic to reduce to three-character month format.
  • I changed it. (I had used the abbreviations because I wanted to keep the table less wide, and to align the years in the date columns.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like the vast majority of these individuals have a portrait image which could be included in the table in another column rather than searching for them dotted around the article.
  • I wanted to keep the table more compact (in line with most tables, I would think?). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For me the ext link which should show me all the female GMs from FIDE website doesn't work at all.
  • It works now. The old version of the FIDE website was down yesterday. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quick starter for me. Plenty to work on here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the (first part of the) review! I replied to all points above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging The Rambling Man. Apologies for not doing it before. No rush, though. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe still no rush The Rambling Man, but could you reply with whether and/or when you plan to continue the review? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to ping TRM again about the above, though I know he is less active nowadays. Sorry this nom has been in the queue for so long! Hopefully after this source review you'll be good to go – Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• ref 2 should be pp.
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A little weird to have 'Sofia Polga' as the publisher for 19, I would just list the website instead
  • Changed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 25, 56 and 78 should be The New York Times
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• likewise, 26 should be The Independent
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Book sources are inconsistent about including locations
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• See also section should be above the notes (per WP:ORDER)
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• I don't understand what ref 69 is, is that a blog?
  • It's the subject's personal website. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The New York post (ref 76) is a tabloid and generally unreliable, can a better source be subsituted
  • That was the only one I could find. Though in connection to the a recent FARC I was involved in, it was noted that sports should be an exception (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Older local sports coverage from New York Post). In this particular instance, the author is a GM so I don't think there is a concern. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for looking into this, your rationale seems completely valid, I just thought it was worth bringing up.

Verifiability

• Is it possible to have a ref for notes C and D?
  • C is covered by the ref at the end of the sentence in which it appears. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, I copied the ref over to the note, only because I don't think this is immediately obvious, so we might as well make it clear. This also avoids a well-intentioned user adding a "citation needed" tag there in the future. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think D (and the related E) are too basic to need references. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Checked a few, no issues. Happy to do a formal spot check if requested by the nom, coords or others. Aza24 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Aza24! I replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and thanks for your work here. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this one has been open way too long. I've looked it through, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 20:04, 7 July 2022 (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, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent promotion of Snooker world rankings 2019/2020, I thought I'd have another crack at it. Trump held the number one spot all season, winning five ranking events, ahead of Mark Selby who won the world championship. Let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retaining the position throughout the season" => "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retained the position throughout the season"
• "Trump began the season with over a 500,000 point lead" => "Trump began the season with a lead of over 500,000 points"
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• ALT text could be bit better than just "Photo".
• Licencing fine; just a full stop needed for the caption.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all of the changes above @Kavyansh.Singh and ChrisTheDude:. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review. Would appreciate if you could just do an image review for this nomination (just 1 image) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• Could add a page description.
  • Intentionally blank, I can't think of anything more succinct than the page name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's probably worth mentioning that only the top 64, plus those with another year to run on a two-year card, and the top 8 from 2020/21 if not otherwise qualified, remained on the main tour.
  • Sure. As you know this can be a bit more complicated than that, as also those who are in the top 4 of the one year list qualify, as well as anyone who qualifies for the main stage of the WSC. It's a balance between being thorough, and not going off topic. I'm not sure either way, if I'm honest. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Snooker Scene for June 2021 says that it's top 8 from the one-year list and didn't mention WSC main stage, but they've been wrong before; and consistent rules seem to be less important than commercial considerations for the snooker authorities, so maybe they changed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Snooker Scene (June 2021) comments on the end-of-season rankings include that Trump was nearly a million points ahead for most of the season, and that Selby won most points in 20/21 (820,500 to Trump's 573,500).Jordan Brown (Welsh Open Champion) was the highest ranked one-season pro, at 40th. None of these are essential points for the wikipedia article IMO but I think it would be worth looking at that article as there's probably not going to be any other independent source with as much commentary/opionion.
  • Yeah, it's probably a good point. I'll check over the article when I get chance. Tbf, he was about 800,000 points ahead for most of the season, and only just under a million for a little bit. It could be added, but I feel like as we give the totals, just prose on who held the spot throughout the year is enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have a source for Note 10 (about withdrawals)?
  • I went ahead and removed it. We'd be better to cite the actual instances if we know about it, but it's news to me if it happened at any time in the season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest running IABot to archive all sources possible. (e.g. 9, 10, and 26)
  • Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Some inconsistency in refs, e.g. 9 and 10 are both wst.tv but appear differently. ("WST" may be more accurate after Jan 2020 - see https://wpbsa.com/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ from 9 January 2020).
  • I think I got them all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 7 and 11 are the same source as each other.
  • Merged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 12 looks incomplete.
  • I think this is sorted now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With some script or other, Refs 12 and 13 show "CS1 maint: url-status"
  • Yeah, its cause there was no archive link. Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to award players with ranking points" - Source says "Rankings were only introduced after the World Championship of 1976." The first offical ranking list (Snooker world rankings 1976/1977) used points based on 1974 to 1976 results, using a system that was published in 1975 (or possibly even earlier). I think the text could be reworked (e.g. "...were first used in the the 1976–77 snooker season...") even though what's there now is a fair reading of the source used. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably all a bit of a muchness, but I have made the change. I think it's mostly relevant that the points only made a difference during this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• Made some very minor edits.
• Mostly just glanced over the tables cuz of their size, but support on the basis of prose as I don't see anything that requires correction or adjustment. Nice work! AryKun (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought per MOS we could drop the century for consecutive years? Plus it's odd the title here is 2020/2021 while the "main article" is at 2020–21.... slash, dash, digits??
  • Yeah, I agree. This has been discussed, at Talk:Snooker world rankings 2019/2020, but this was the solution. SMcCandlish gave an indepth view on this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think it should probably be consistent between related articles. The "2021–22" style is a poor idea for a long series of article names, because 2009–10 looks too much like 2009-10, i.e. October 2009. But if we're dead-set on using it for the snooker season articles, then we should also use it for the rankings articles. It would be better to rename the season articles, though. Regardless, I don't think this question should in any way hold up FAC matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "given "ranking" status" why in quotes? The previous sentence used "ranking" without quotes.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to use ranking points.[1]" This appears to be a near-repeat of the latter portion of the opening sentence.
  • Reworded per what we originally had in mind. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "won ranking points based entirely on prize money won" won ... won.
  • Changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "began the season as the world number one and retained the position throughout the season, winning five ranking events through the season" triple season.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Should say that the picture of Trump is from 2015, not the season in question.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "2018/2019 points dropped" again, why not be consistent with the "main" article nomenclature?
  • Per above Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "with ten revisions after specific tournaments" but the table lists only eight revisions?
  • Yeah, there is eight, plus the start and end. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sources:[10][8][7]" numerical order.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suddenly there's a "Revision 0", when was that from?
• And a revision 9?
  • I've changed these names. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think my confusion here is from the lead's description of how the ranking window works. Perhaps some more clarity could be offered?
• Does each tournament offer a differing number of ranking points? It's not very reasonable to compare the revision standings without knowing how much each tournament was worth?
  • Well, that's both true and not true. Events have different point totals (so, the world championship is worth significantly more than any other event), however, players lose points from the event two years ago. So, theoretically, you have chance to also lose points during the same revision. Considering we specifically give the points made in a lower table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 12 for instance has the publisher name in the title, check all others.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4, for instance, has spaced hyphen, should be en-dash, check others.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason to not link Eurosport?
• Or BBC Sport?
  • I don't generally like linking works in references. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 7 and 10 have wst.tv while others seem to have WST, be consistent.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a brief canter over the list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left some comments. 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay The Rambling Man,had some health issues I won't go into on here - I think I've covered everything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:04, 7 July 2022 (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.