Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2024

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this out! This is a list about the medals earned by nations that competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics (and medals that aren't official anymore)! Waiting for some comments, and hope I can address them :P Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (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 template that you are using for the table has a parameter to add the caption. If that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "entities that did not participate in the 2020 Summer Olympics." - Fix the year. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Done with your comments. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...continuing

• "17 sports across 23 different disciplines" - For my own knowledge, what's an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines?
• " 27 nations received at least one medal," - countries don't get the medal, their citizens do. See 1936 Summer Olympics medal table for how to rephrase this.
• Art competitions section: A bit weird to start a new section with "Additionally,". Try "The 1924 Olympics also included art competitions...".
• "Though medals in art competitions are no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count" - Don't start the sentence with "Though". Also, if you could give information on which other Games had these art competitions, it would be nice.
• "In architecture, no gold medal was awarded while the silver was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós, who became one of only two Olympians ever to have won medals in both sport (swimming) and art Olympic competitions, and Dezső Lauber of Hungary." - This is quite a complex sentence. Maybe you can mover the additional clause about Hajos' two medals to a new sentence.
• "The medal count on the IOC website also includes medals from art competitions. The tables have been separated here."
• footnote b isn't a full sentence and doesn't need a full stop."
• footnote c: "This event is no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count."
• "winning the men's 1500 metres event at the 1952 Summer Olympics" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Done for most of the comments. For the first comment, an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines is aquatics which spans over diving, swimming, and water polo at these Games. For the second comment, I've replaced most of the instances besides the nations that earned their first gold/any medal, which I'm basing off 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, let me know if you have a problem with this one. Let me know if you have more comments. Arconning (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about this definition of disciplines. The definitions of "sport" and "discipline" were vice-versa in my mind. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Czechoslovakia won their nation's" - this doesn't really work grammatically, as it reads like Czechoslovakia owned itself. "The team from Czechoslovakia won their nation's" would work, though. Same for the following sentence.
• "Is there any need to show the key as "Host nation (France)", given that the only entry in the table with this colour/symbol is France? I would think just showing the key as "Host nation" would be fine (relates to both tables)
• Image caption: the word "pictured" in "Paavo Nurmi of Finland (pictured) won" is pretty redundant, as he's the only person in the photo so obviously he is the one pictured.
• "World map showing the medal achievements of each country during the 1924 Summer Olympics." - this doesn't need a full stop
• "Image caption: "Hajós at the 1896 Summer Olympics, where he" - show his full name
• "painting, and sculpturing" - "sculpturing" is a pretty obscure word (indeed I had to double check that it was definitely a real word). I think "sculpture" would be better (here and further on in the section)
• "architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpturing [...] was a medal eligible event" - as the subject of the sentence is five distinct things, the verb should be plural. Also there should be a hyphen in "medal-eligible"
• "a medal eligible event to competitors " - the words "to competitors" are redundant as obviously only competitors were eligible for medals
• "was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary" => "was awarded to the pair of Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary"
• "the jury could not make a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors" => "the jury could not reach a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors"
• Why does Greece have "(GRE)" in brackets in the second table? No other country has this.
• Note c: "though is credited as a French competitor" => "but is credited as a French competitor"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude For the first comment, I reworded the first sentence with "Czechoslovakia's team won their nation's..." if that's okay with you, I've worded accordingly for the other sentences. For the second comment, FLs of medal tables include that so I included it to retain consistency. For the rest of the comments, I believe I'm done :) Arconning (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - personally I can't see the point of "Host nation (France)" in the key but I won't quibble over it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 4 – Can we do better than olympicgameswinners.com?
• Ref 7 – Downcase to "Inside the Games"
• Ref 9 – Add Associated Press as the agency
• Ref 13 – When I visit the link it shows a publish date of February 26, 2024. Does it list the 27th for you, or was this a typo?
• Ref 27 – I was hesitant, but they seem reliable enough for the information being verified.
• Ref 26 – Well this confuses me. It looks like this has a date of 1896 to it, but that's clearly not correct given it speaks about 1924 in there.
• Ref 22 – Is that a date of 22 October 2021 there? It's hard to tell with the date stuff on the Olympics website.
• Ref 30 – There's a date of 26 July 1952, but I don't know if that's meant to be the publish date, but I feel like it's not. The date listed matches up with the final of Athletics at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres.

Great stuff. Please ping me when the issues above have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh For ref 4, most of the sources list down art competitions as part of the medal count for France and Finland, so this was the best source I could find that's reliable enough, and for the medalists I've replaced the source. For ref 13, it shows as 27 for me, probably moves to the users timezone (let me know if I have to replace this). For ref 26, it probably shows when Hajos' swimming event was held. For ref 30, same with the last comment, when event was held. For the rest, I'm done! Hope this works. Arconning (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: I won't ask you to change the date if it adjusts based on timezone, I just wanted to verify that that was the case. What makes Olympic Games Winners a reliable source? It doesn't appear widely used a source. Perhaps you can cobble together a couple of different sources to replace the Olympic Games Winners source? If you can't you can't, but I think some would challenge the reliability of the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I amazingly found another source, it has now been replaced. Though the site places France second per the total medal count, hope this isn't a problem regarding this article uses golds first. Arconning (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan has three WHS and 15 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for Tunisia has just been promoted, the list for Botswana (where I am the co-nominator) is seeing some support already so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "which existed over a millennium" - Add some rough dates here.
• "contains the Meidob volcanic field (satellite image pictured), the Jebel Rahib hills, "
• "The park significant from the natural point of view because" to "The park is biologically significant because"
• "The area is a desert and semi desert with sand dunes." Needs fixing depending on what you want to say.
• " seat of medieval Christian bishops"
• "rededicated to Aten under Akhenaten." to "rededicated to Aten, during the rule of Akhenaten."
• "left by the pilgrims through the centuries."
• Bit weird to have both "Wadi Hower National Park - Gala Abou Ahmed (mixed natural and cultural site)" and "Wadi Hower National Park". Would need an explanation. Also, the my second point applies here too since the text is quite similar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! As for the two Wadi Hower listings, it appears that they updated the nomination but did not remove the old one (which would be a reasonable thing to do). I've seen it before in some cases, but it is rare. Since technically these are two distinct nominations, although overlapping, I would leave it as it is. Maybe I'll add a note on the second one. Tone 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "deserts and semi deserts with sand dunes" - Can you write this in a different way? I don't understand what point you are trying to make there, otherwise I would have suggested different wording. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to rewrite. This was referring to different types of ecosystems. Tone 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first site in Sudan was listed in 2003, this was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites." - I think "The first site to be listed in Sudan was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites in 2003." would work better
• "which existed over a millennium" => "which existed for over a millennium""
• "and Middle East" => "and the Middle East"
• "in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE" => "in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE"
• "It was dedicated to archangel Raphael." => "It was dedicated to the archangel Raphael."
• "between the 6th and 1st millennium BCE" => "between the 6th and 1st millennia BCE"
• Plus what MPGuy said :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 08:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Gebel Barkal.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Sudan Meroe Pyramids 30sep2005 10.jpg is a valid Flickr import, checked by an admin as having the proper license.
• File:Suakin,el-Geyf mosque.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 3.0.
• File:Kerma city.JPG is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Church of the Granite Columns 2007-10-03 01.jpg has a 404 link, but another image uploaded in the same batch was checked and confirmed to be properly licensed as CC2.0, and the author's other works are similarly licensed.
• N Strangely, File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg appears to have been removed from its original gallery. However, all other images on the site are licensed as CC-BY-NC, which is not usable on Wikipedia. It looks like there are a lot of these images on Commons, so this may be a bigger problem than just this article. Will need a replacement for this image.
• ? File:نهر الدندر من الطائرة.JPG is properly licensed, but it is not a particularly good image. Are there any possible images of the park not on Commons that could be used instead?
• File:Africa Mt Dair.jpg is a public domain NASA image
• File:Sudan Jebel Marra Deriba Lakes edited.jpg has some minor license format issues but nothing that necessitates exclusion
• File:Kerma-Deffufa.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
• File:Soleb1.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.
• File:Banganarti 2013 .jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.

Just two images with an issue, please ping when you have seen and responded. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. As for the first one, I suppose it is better to remove it altogether since I cannot find a better image on Commons that does not have that issue. File:Nile Map Sudan.png is possible but I am trying to avoid maps. As for the second one, the other relevant image is File:الدندر.jpg, which is equally non-ideal. I don't mind removing them both since a FL would ideally have good images. What do you think? Tone 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would at least remove the first image; if there aren't any alternatives for the second I think it is OK to leave. Once the first is removed I am happy to support on images. Fritzmann (message me) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Tone 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sudan accepted the convention" I'd use "ratified" instead.
• "Jebel Barkal and the associated sites" to "Jebel Barkal and its associated sites"?
• "The sites of...in 2016." should be either "The sites of Meroë and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park were listed in 2011 and 2016, respectively." or "The site of Meroë was listed in 2011 and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park in 2016."
• "The latter is a natural site" isn't "latter" just for lists of two objects?
• "The archaeological area in" to "This archaeological area in"?
• "Jebel Barkal...sacred mountain" to "Jebel Barkal, which has the Temple of Amun at its foot, was considered a sacred mountain."
• "Monuments include temples" to "Monuments in the area include temples"?
• "Some aspects of burial practices" You don't mention any funerary practices earlier, so this doesn't really fit well. I'd go with something like "The pyramids and burial chambers of the site are an 'outstanding example of funerary architecture'. Some aspects of this funerary tradition remained in use until the 6th century".
• "ruled Egypt Egypt" typo.
• "The park has...2004." to "The park was previously listed on the tentative list in 2004."? Also, if it was already on the tenative list, why did they have to relist it?
• That's all I have. AryKun (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I fixed the ones that I think fit, some of them I think are fine as they are. Funerary practices refer to tombs that are mentioned in the previous sentence. The two natural reserves are a single WH site, with two components, thus singular. The 2004 thing just means that they didn't do the cleanup of the list, but we cannot do much here, both are still on the list :) Tone 09:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Source review passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something from a different continent this time. I’ve modelled it on similar heads of state FLs. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is for the Developing Countries WikiContest. I encourage reviewers to join soon, if it seems interesting (since July 15 is the last date that they are accepting new signups). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974 adopted in 1976." --> "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974, which was adopted in 1976."
• "The constitution, written by Micombero, affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi." --> "Written by Micombero, the consistution affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi"; also include some more details on what this affirmation meant, perhaps? What powers did it grant him (back then)?
• "The powers of the president derive from the 2005 constitution implemented as a result of the 2000 Arusha Accords after the Burundian Civil War." --> "Currently, the powers of the president derive from the [...]"
• Include more Wikilinks for clarity - ie. Supreme Court, provincial governors, etc.
• See also section has an indented bullet - is this intentional?
• I might be mistaken but I believe source [1] (the Xinhua article) does not verify the claim in the article that "Nkurunziza was elected for a third term, as the Constitutional Court considered that first, indirectly elected term, did not count towards the limit". This Al-Jazeera article for the footnote might be a better source, while the Xinhua article can still be used for the infobox. (Personally I wouldn't use Xinhua but I suppose it isn't deprecated)

Thanks for this list @MPGuy2824, it's quite important and I'm excited to see it become featured! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Powers granted by the 1974 constitution: I was sadly unable to find anything specific about what new powers he got, but this was 8 years after his coup, and it would be reasonable to assume that the constitution (officially) granted him the powers that he was already using until then.
• "Currently" is frowned upon by the MOS. I've added an "As of 2024" at the beginning, and an {{update after}} template at the end of that sentence.
• Fixed the rest. @Staraction: Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good. Support on prose! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:COLOR you can't use colour alone to indicate acting presidents, you will need to use a symbol as well for the benefit of people who cannot discern colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Double dagger added. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What verifies the information in the table? I went to verify the info, such as the assassinations, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do so in this case (please ping when you respond). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I've now moved the references that were already there in the table to a new column and added a bunch more. Please take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Coat of arms of Burundi.svg and No image.png are public domain images with relevant tags.
• Evariste Ndayishimiye (cropped).jpg is GODL and has an appropriate CC tag.
• Prime Minister Micombero in 1966.png (via Crowning of Ntare V in Burundi.webm), Jean Baptiste Bagaza - 1978.tiff, Melchior Ndadaye.png, Sylvie Kinigi at Bujumbura airport, 1993.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg (via Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013.jpg), Domitien Ndayizeye, President of Burundi (2) (cropped).jpg and President Nkurunziza of Burundi (6920275109) (cropped).jpg, have appropriate license tags.
• Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg has appropriate CC tags but states that it has not yet been reviewed to confirm that the license is valid. Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg, also have not been reviewed.
• None of the CC licensed images have US tags.

The images all have CC or PD licenses that seem reasonable. Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg, Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg or its source Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally.jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Additionally, one president, Pierre Buyoya, served" - no reason for the word "additionally"
• Sorting on the first column doesn't work correctly, you need to use hidden sort templates to make the dashes and the one in brackets sort in the correct place
• "However, Nkurunziza was elected for a third term" - remove "however" and show his full name
• If you are going to link Constitutional Court in the notes, it should be linked in note a, not note d -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: For the sorting, I'm not sure where to place "(3)". For now, I've placed it just under 6, like in the initial sort order of the table. I've fixed the other issues that you've pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You've not fixed the last one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Odd: I was sure that I did it, but maybe I hadn't pressed "Publish". Anyway, looking over the list again, I notice that the phrase is wikilinked in the lead, so I've removed the link from the notes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is my first foray into FLC; I usually hang around GAN. I will be doing the source review, and because it is my first one I will probably be more thorough than strictly required. Other reviewers and nominator, please feel free to correct any errors I may unknowingly stumble into.

1. Xinhua is the state news source of China, but is considered reliable for non-China topics. However, I don't think this is the best source because it states that the draft constitution will allow for 7 years and up to 2 terms. Is there a more recent source that is based on the finalized constitution?

   You are the second reviewer to look askance at that xinhua ref. I've removed the source completely. The relevant prose is supported by the constitution ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

2. NYT is considered a reliable source. It verifies the date of the establishment of the republic, but from what I can see only infers that Micombrero was President, not that he established the presidency. I don't think it's much of a stretch, but just wanted to point this out.
3. Reference 3 (the 2005 constitution), needs page numbers. I believe the first instance is page 1, and the second is page 5. Further, this source does not support the claim "as of 2024" since it was published in 2005. It could support "as of 2005", but a more recent source would be needed to support "as of 2024".

   Another reviewer had a problem with a previous version of this sentence. I've now rewritten the sentence to incorporate both sets of feedback. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

4. Cambridge University Press is considered reliable. From what I can tell, it adequately supports the article's claim without issues.
5. NYT again. No issues.
6. Africa Spectrum is a peer reviewed journal and I can find no issues with its reliability.
7. Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable in this subject area. Support the note.
8. Include page 20 where this claim is found for ease of verifiability

   Done. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

9. I do not have access to ref 9 and will assume good faith.
10. Does not support election year of 1984, took office date of 1 November, and does not mention UPRONA or Nzambimana.

    Common ref added.

11. Mentions coup year, but not took office date of 3 September. Also does not mention UPRONA or military affiliation, or prime minister Sibomana.

    Common ref added.

12. Supports chronology of events, but FRODEBU and prime minister Kinigi are not present.

    Common ref added.

13. AGF on French foreign language source.
14. I do not have access to reference 14.

    Try accessing via WP:TWL

15. I am not able to find much info on IWACU. Their website also does not list their staff or editorial team, so I am a bit concerned on reliability here.

    I've replaced this ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

16. Ref 16 supports year of 2003, but not date of 30 April. Also does not mention political party.

    Common ref added.

17. Does mention party, but I don't see any mention of the chronology of his presidency.

    Added a ref to support years as president. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

18. AGF on French foreign language source.

Citations for the last paragraph of the lead are likely warranted, despite the straightforwardness of the claims. Please respond above to concerns on sources, thanks in advance for your patience with me! Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some of the issues. Will ping you after I take a stab at fixing the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. I will be travelling and not have access to the wiki starting on Friday, so for promotion purposes I support once all of the above issues have been addressed. Fritzmann (message me) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: It took me some time to find a ref with covered the entire timeline of independent Burundi. It is now linked to in the table caption. A few straggling pieces of information still don't have sources, but the only solution for that is to remove whole columns, and I'm sure to get pushback from list watchers about that. There are now references for a couple of the statements in the last paragraph of the lead. I don't think the remaining statements are as contestable as those two. Please have a look at the list when you can. There is no particular rush. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thanks for your hard work. Fritzmann (message me) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the source review above, which MPGuy looks to have largely implemented, I also have some feedback:

• Ref 1 – This New York Times source requires a subscription, please specify that
• Ref 2 – Could use a publisher
• Ref 3 – Add [[United Press International|UPI]] as the agency
• Ref 3 – Use |at=Section B., p. 5 to call out the section and page
• Ref 4 – Perhaps it would make sense to add University of Ottawa
• Ref 8 and 9 – These Washington Post sources requires a subscription, please specify that

Other than that, I'm happy. Good stuff MPGuy!! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks for the review. I've made all the changes that you've suggested. Implementing some of Fritzmann's suggestions will probably involve replacing some of the refs, so I'd prefer if you indicate your Support/Oppose after those changes are in. I'll ping you here when that is done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I've added refs in response to Fritzman's comments. Feel free to take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: This now has 2 source reviews and a few good faith edits which unfortunately removed some table accessibility features. I'm in discussion with the editor, and will note (for my own reference) that Fritzmann's review was for revision 1234253945 and Josh's review was for revision 1234660604. I will ping both of you once the list meets the FL criteria again and your particular feedback is incorporated or commented on. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright y'all, mammal list #41 and the 6th and final list of Eulipotyphlans: our capstone list for the order! The species lists covered the hedgehogs, moles, shrews, shrews, and more shrews of Eulipotyphla, the 4th-biggest order of Mammalia (behind rats, bats, and monkeys), and this list, like the previous capstone lists, jumps up a level to list out all the genera of the order (and adds the two solenodon species, which are too small to get their own list). This follows on from the formatting of those previous lists, like List of primates, and also like those lists needed some careful structuring of the references to keep the page from getting too long to render. It's all in there though, and ready to review!

With this list, after 5 years we've gotten 15 of the 17 big-enough orders done (10 more have <10 species each), and just have the last two orders to go: Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rodents). Unfortunately, those two have... more than half of all mammal species. Not quite sure how I'm going to tackle those yet! In any case, thanks to all the reviewers who've checked these lists out over the years. --PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• "exceptions of...all but northern South America" is hard to understand, any way to reword it?
• "between the...of gymnures" to "between the subfamilies Erinaceinae (hedgehogs) and Galericinae (gymnures)."
• "split btween...red-toothed shrews" to "split between the subfamilies Crocidurinae (white-toothed shrews), Myosoricinae (African shrews), and Soricinae (red-toothed shrews)."
• Also for Talpidae.
• "exact organization of the species" Classification would be a better word than organization.
• "No species...since 1500 CE" to "No species have gone extinct since 1500 CE"
• Tables, refs, and images seem fine. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Another excellent extensive work. Nothing to quibble on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My only query is that "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, and include shrews." sounds like there's something along the lines of "and [something else]" missing at the end (i.e. the use of "include" implies that it covers multiple different types of thing, not just one). If all the soricids are shrews then this could be simplified to "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, or shrews."
• Other than that, all good as always! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! --PresN 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 13 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first featured list nomination. This is a list of all the Mercedes-EQ models, including the production and concept models. If this gets promoted, it will be the first automobile featured list. Thanks, and enjoy the read! 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a larger review later on, but for now I want to point out some accessibility issues.

• You used ! rowspan="1" when you should have used ! scope="row". For instances where a row span would only be 1, do not use the rowspan parameter. For instances where you do need to specify a rowspan, you would do ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="2".
• Add column scopes
• Tables needs a title

Again, I'll be back to a larger review later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those should be addressed now 750h+ 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use dmy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been

done

• Why is there no body style listed for the concept vehicles?

i couldn’t find any references

• Ref columns should be unsortable

done

• Article needs a short description, even if set to none

done

• Ref 9 – Add David McHugh as the author and Associated Press as the agency

done

• Ref 16 – Add author and USA Today as the agency

done

• Ref 20 – Add author

done

• Ref 38 – Add author

done

• Ref 41 and 48 – Change the website to U.S. News & World Report

done

• Ref 46 – Add author

done

That's what I've got, good stuff! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! All addressed, @Hey man im josh:. 750h+ 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the review! 750h+ 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "which was to be launched a few years later" - a bit vague....?
• There's three consecutive sentences that basically all start "They unveiled...." - any chance you can vary this a bit?
• "produced several concept cars, such include" - wording's a bit mangled here, I think
• The headings that include "(cal. year)" look a little odd. Why not just "(year)"?
• Is "SIP" a standard/well-known abbreviation in the motor trade? If not, I would write it in full or even use a {{N/A}} template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much! 750h+ 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the last sentence of the lead have a reference?

added

• Is it necessary to include "where various other electric cars—including the Opel Ampera-e and a redesigned Renault Zoe—debuted"? This article should really be focusing on Mercedes-EQ, and not feature unrelated cars prominently in the lead.

removed

• Why does the concept vehicles table not have a body style row?

I couldn't find any good references for some of the classes, so I just didn't add them

• Some websites in the citations aren't wikilinked. E.g. two instances of CNET and three instances of The Verge. There might be some others I haven't noticed.

added

• Specifying a px size for images should generally not be done as per MOS:IMGSIZE. It's fine for the images in the table (which is given as an exception in MOS:IMGSIZE), but for the lead image, the fixed px size (340px) should be replaced with upright=1.5.

done

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All have been addressed. Thanks for the review, @Steelkamp:. 750h+ 10:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! 750h+ 15:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: hope this isn't bugging but will there be an image review? 750h+ 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates don't strictly need an image review, unlike FAC, although someone can do an image review if they so choose. (not a FLC director or delegate) Steelkamp (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. 750h+ 12:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this is pretty image-heavy in an area that I'm not well familiar with, so I'd prefer one. The reason it's not "required" is due to a lack of people actually doing them. I'd give this a pass on the image review though- all commons, all self-uploads by... 3 people? Looks like a whole world of car photography I didn't know we had people doing. --PresN 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass! 750h+ 23:47, 24 July 2024 (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) 21:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely excited about this nomination, probably more so than any other nomination I've made, because this is the final part of a 4-part featured topic (my first!) that I've been working on based on the Detroit Lions draft history. If and when this list is promoted, I'll be receiving my first Triple Crown (provided they let me use a FT as my GT submission, someone pointed out I should probably follow up to see if this a thing) and making my first featured topic nomination!

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), which was promoted on June 3rd, and should meet all featured list criteria. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A handful of players have no college listed and Lou Creekmur has no team in the AAFC dispersal draft - is this intentional or an oversight? If intentional, maybe add footnotes explaining how they came to be drafted without a college/AAFC team......
• "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh-round" => "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh round" (you only need to hyphenate it when it's being used as an adjective)
• Similrly "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first-round of the 1958 draft." => "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first round of the 1958 draft."
• That's all I got. Great work as ever!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creekmur was a very weird case... I added some notes, but, in short, he was drafted by an AAFC (and NFL) team but returned to school anyways. As a result, when the leagues merged, he was put into the player pool that was eligible for being drafted, despite never having played or signed for the LA Dons. I've added a note for clarity.
  • Fixed the text for Schmidt and Karras

  As for the colleges, I'll work on figuring out why they aren't listed. Perhaps that was a little bit lazy of me, instead of just going with what was available. Newspapers.com here I come! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Surprisingly, I was able to find all the college information, which I've added with references now. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work and in line with similar FLs. Could not find anything to quibble. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for taking a look @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this nom while on Wiki-break! Source review: Passed

• Reliable for what is being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks all looked good.
• Support nice work! I can't find anything to improve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the format and the source review @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images relevant to the article
• All images properly captioned
• All images have alt text
• All images either under PD or an appropriate license (AGF on self-published sources).

Support on images. Thanks for your work as always, and congratulations on completing (upon promotion of this list) a Triple Crown and a featured topic @Hey man im josh! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the congratulations @Staraction! Unfortunately I fear that a featured topic may not count in place of a good topic, so my hopes of a Triple Crown may be gone! Unless someone gets back to me on my inquiry. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2024 (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, 28 July 2024 (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) 20:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second congressional delegations nomination from me, the first being United States congressional delegations from Connecticut! Other featured lists in this vein include Utah, Indiana, and Hawaii. Lots of what I've written is of the same style as the Connecticut article. Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any and all feedback y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying members of the House" - obviously each state elects varying members, they don't all elect the same ones. I think what you mean is "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying numbers of members of the House"
• "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation is" => "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation, is"
• "of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives: 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats." - odd that you write all the numbers as words and then suddenly switch to digits at the end......
• "Of those, Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema have been the first and only women" - I think "the only women" would suffice, as if they are the only ones than by definition they were also the first
• "such that each election, around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" => "such that at each election around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election"
• "Following 1940 census" => "Following the 1940 census"
• "Following 1960 census" => "Following the 1960 census" (and so on for all the others)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've done everything except for the second bullet point. Wouldn't "or longest serving member" be a parenthetical clause; thus removing it leaves "The current dean of the Arizona delegation is" vs. "The current dean of the Arizona delegation, is"? I feel like the first option makes more grammatical sense. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there's more. Thanks again for reviewing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, ignore that one, I don't know what I was thinking there. One thing I didn't pick up on before, though: "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who are the only women who have served Arizona in the Senate" - doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Seven women have served in the House, including two who served in the Senate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a little bit weird to phrase and I don't think it came out properly. Sinema and McSally both served in the House prior to serving in the Senate, and they are the only women to have ever served in the Senate. Is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who also served the state in the Senate, the only women to do so"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds good, thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "The first woman to serve Arizona in the Senate was Isabella Greenway." - House of Representatives, not Senate.
• the current senator table is missing colscopes. Also its first header needs to be made into a table caption
• In the full senate table, you don't need to bold the Congress since that is a header cell in every row. This should be checked for the other tables as well.
• There is also no need of setting the height. The height anyway expands to more than 2em when there is less space. This probably holds true for other tables as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for your feedback! All should be fixed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on prose and table accessibility. I fixed a few minor accessibility issues in some of the tables. You can keep those in mind when you prep your next FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 @Staraction Sorry, I reverted these edits because the table wasn't displaying terms right. In my experience the 2ems are needed because otherwise mid-term changes don't show correctly, though I don't know if there's a better way to fix them. I'll put the other changes back once I have more time though. Emk9 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support:I support you, but don't forget to update after elections. --金色黎明 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Cook Partisan Voting Index, a determination of how strongly partisan a state is" -> recommend replacing "determination" with "measure"
• "14 people have served as a U.S. Senator from Arizona." -> Could expand this to say "Since its first congressional delegation in 1913, 14 people have served as a U.S. Senator for Arizona" (make sure to also copy the citation from the lead for the 1913 claim)
• "rotating through each class such that [in] each election[,] around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" <- add in the stuff in the brackets
• "One member of the House of Representatives is sent from each district via a popular vote." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Each district uses a popular vote to elect a member of Arizona's delegation in the House of Representatives.")
• "Arizona has had nine congressional districts since districts were redrawn in 2013 as a result of the 2010 United States Census." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Since its districts were redrawn in 2013 according to the results of the 2010 census, Arizona has had nine congressional districts")
• "For six years, the seats were elected at-large statewide on a general ticket." <- doesn't at-large and statewide mean the same thing? (recommend taking out at-large if possible or rewording for concision)
• 1912–1943: 1 seat, 1943–1963: 2 seats, 1963–1973: 3 seats, 1973–1983: 4 seats, 1983–1993: 5 seats, 1993–2003: 6 seats, 2003–2013: 8 seats, & 2013–present: 9 seats <- make sure all the prose-text in those subsections have in-line references
• All the tables under the United States House of Representatives section are missing refs and should have some sort of ref/citation added either in the column/row headers or as a table footnote
• For the 2022 U.S. representatives from Arizona table, the "Incumbent since" column should have a ref in the header if possible (like CPVI (2022) header next to it already does)
• "Arizona's current congressional delegation in the 118th Congress consists of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives, six Republicans and three Democrats." should also have an in-line ref
• "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain, who died in office." -> recommend rewording to "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain after McCain's death in office."
• Not completely sure whether this is required per MOS:DTAB but I'd recommend adding |+{{sronly|}} for each of the tables (this template is used by screenreaders as a sort of title/caption for the table to my knowledge)
• Just a thought but I feel like this sort of list would benefit from a brief infobox where the current map & caption are kept and additional basic info (e.g. year of first delegation, current number of districts (as of which census), numerical party control/distribution of the delegation, dean of the delegation, etc.)

I'm not particularly familiar with these types of lists so not sure what's considered standard or not but I'd strongly recommend adding at least some refs to the tables imo. Otherwise, this is a great list for a great state! :) Many thanks Staraction for nominating this! Please ping on reply if needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the suggestions were applied and after taking another quick read through of the page and making one very minor edit, I think it's ready to be promoted. Support for FL status and thanks Staraction for the quick followup! Dan the Animator 20:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comments & the fast response! I was unable to reply to you yesterday before I had to attend to something important in real life but your comments are very appreciated :D Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that this is my first image review. My comments would be largely based on image review from the corresponding article on Connecticut. Most of them are official portraits, so there shouldn't be any problem, but I'll still try to be thorough. Feel free to correct me if I miss anything here.
• File:Kyrsten Sinema (cropped).jpg- Source link is broken, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Mark Kelly, Official Portrait 117th (cropped).jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be found here.
• File:Rep. Eli Crane official photo, 118th Congress.jpg- Image not found in second source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Andy Biggs official portrait.jpg- Source link is broken, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:Paul Gosar 115th Congress.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• File:John McCain official portrait 2009.jpg- I'm unable to access the source link, but PD can be verified here.
• File:Sinema Dec 2023.jpg- Image not found in either source links, but can be found here. However, the license stated here is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
• File:Isabella Selmes Ferguson Greenway.jpg- Image not found in source link, but can be verified from archived link.
• All images have alt text.
• All images appropriately captioned
• All images relevant to text. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, thank you so much for the image review! I've replaced the second Sinema image. Kelly's portrait was found on that page (just a little bit farther down); I've replaced the source link with something more specific. Would I need to change anything else? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nitro Absynthe pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Archive all references
• Ref 1, 6, 12news.com → 12News
• Ref 16 add date July 12, 2022
• Ref 33 requires subscription
• Ref 38 link author Alden Whitman
• Ref 39 add via=Newspapers.com
• Ref 41 requires subscription, link author Nicholas Fandos
• Link websites for the following. If you don't want to link the same article in multiple sources you don't have to. For example "Ref 8, 10, 22, 23 link United States Senate" you can just link the first instance which would be ref 8. I'm fine with it either way.

• Copyvios shows no major issues.

-- EN-Jungwon 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for the review! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out; if there are more please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:37, 27 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. JK I have been looking through other FL discographies and adapted features from them, so I think this one is ready. Please leave any feedback if you need. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: and @RunningTiger123:: I'm interested to hear: do you think it's ready? I've responded to all comments. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 23:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Linda Lindas formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by" => "The Linda Lindas were/was [whichever is correct in US English - I get confused with how band names are treated] formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by"
• "In 2021, band went viral" => "In 2021, the band went viral"
• Image caption isn't a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
• There's no need for a "certifications" column in the album table if they haven't received any
• If "Growing Up" was a single then it probably shouldn't also be included in "other appearances"
• Why is the music video table split into two? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude:Done – added "was" and "the", removed period, certifications column, and "Growing Up" from other appearances.

  As for the music videos, I have it split because the main list is the music videos by the band, and the other one is a list of music videos the band made cameos in. (I moved them further apart for clarity) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the second table is for cases where the band guested in someone else's video, I think it should indicate whose video it was.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Done – I added an "artist" column – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - apologies, I got a bit bogged down and forgot to revisit this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The EPs and singles are mostly unsourced. If something doesn't chart, it will need some other source to prove it was released. (SZA discography is a recent FL that does this well.)
  • If the MusicBrainz general reference is meant to cover these, note that the site is user-generated and not reliable (see commentary at this RfC and this RSN discussion, among other places).
• "Totally Killer" should probably be in italics, not quotes

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Done – sourced releases of EPs, italicized Totally Killer – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing sources for the singles... RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Done – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, trying not to get too bogged down now but I noticed some of the new citations use Citation Style 2 when most of the others use Citation Style 1; you should pick a consistent style within the list and stick to it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normalized to style 1 – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been enjoying your work on the Linda Lindas articles so I hope you don't mind that I have reviewed this!

• I don't think the hatnote is needed since none of the topics at the disambiguation page would be sought out with an exclamation mark. In fact, just Vote! could also be safely redirected here.
• "The Linda Lindas released their debut album entitled Growing Up in 2022." - Suggest commas before and after "entitled Growing Up"
• The album not charting on the Billboard 200 appears to be unsourced, and I am not sure mentioning that is necessary even if a source were to be found.
• It is not immediately obvious what "(87875)" denotes, and it does not seem to be common practice on discography articles to include these.
• In ref 34, the parenthesis "Spin (magazine)" should not appear to readers and should instead just spell out "Spin"

That is all. This list is solid and, other than these comments, is ready for promotion in my opinion.--NØ 11:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: done. Removed hatnote, created redirect, added commas, removed Billboard 200 claim, removed (87875) [which was the "ID" of the album on the label], and piped Spin. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 12:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--NØ 12:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A prestigious physics award given by the Royal Society since 1800. The article's structure (particularly the lead) is largely based on Darwin Medal, another RS Medal, which was promoted to FL in 2022. I am renominating this for FL because I feel like I've addressed all the issues that were brought up in the article's FLRC discussion. Also, I got approval for the same in a recent peer review. This is my first FL nomination. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that I have transcluded this page to main FLC list.– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sir Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford" - this makes it sound like it was a nickname, rather than an honorific title. Change to "Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford"
  • Fixed.
• "noted for his works on thermodynamics, and for establishing the Royal Institution" - remove that comma
  • Fixed.
• "one each in silver and gold, struck in the same die, and made of silver gilt." - one is silver and one is gold, but they are both made of silver? I don't understand this.
  • Apologies, that was a poorly worded sentence. Initially, 2 medals were awarded (silver and gold). Later, this was changed to 1 silver-gilt medal. Similar changes were made for Copley Medal as well. I have rephrased it in the article.
• "For ten times during the early 19th century" => "Ten times during the early 19th century"
  • Fixed.
• "since then it is awarded annually" => "since then it has been awarded annually"
  • Fixed.
• ""For his Experiments on Heat, published in his Work, entitled, an Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat"" - is this bizarre capitalisation of random words how the source presents it?
  • Yes (from ref 13). Earlier editions of RS-published sources had inconsistent capitalization, from which some of the rationales were sourced, hence the issue.
• "For his 'Experiments on the Polarization of Heat,' " - comma should be outside the quote marks (unless this is how the source presents it)
  • That is how it is presented in the source (ref 32).
• "For his 'Experimental Investigations on Polarized Light,' " - same here (unless this is how the source presents it)
  • Same here (ref 40).
• "the Society of Arts of May 12, 1854" - did the Society really use the US date format?
  • Yes. The quote is sourced from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (ref 43).
• Where there were joint winners, you could merge the cells in the rationale column
  • Could you please elaborate on this? The cells in the rationale column for joint winners are already merged, unless I am missing something here.
    • Apologies, it was because I had re-sorted the table, which caused the cells to un-merge -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 2000 rationale has no end quote mark
  • Fixed.
• "for his role in rebellion of 1831 in Parma" => "for his role in the rebellion of 1831 in Parma"
  • Fixed.
• "Alfred Des Cloizeaux" should sort under D as "Des" is part of his surname, not a second forename
  • Fixed.
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there are any issues in the edits, or if I've missed anything. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• It would be good to get the English translations of the Latin inscriptions on the medal, at least for the modern version of the medal.
  • Done for the modern version. Couldn't find any source for the older version.
• "All citizens or residents of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations, or the Republic of Ireland". Since the UK is in the Commonwealth of Nations, you can skip it from this list.
  • Fixed.
• Infobox: It's not obvious from the reference that the Rumford medal is just lower than the Royal Medal in precedence.
  • 'Precedence' was added to maintain consistency with other RS Medal articles like Copley Medal and Royal Medal. I couldn't find any other source explicitly mentioning the order of precedence, so retained the source cited there. The awards in the table are listed in decreasing order (Royal Medal is the lowest rank of Premier Awards; subject-specific medals are of equivalent rank). I'm willing to remove this section if the source isn't good enough. Please let me know.
• Suggestion: Expand the "No award rowspan to cover the "Notes" column too.
  • Done.
• That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unless you find a good source for the precedence of the awards, I suggest that you remove it.
    • "The diameter of the medal is 3 inches (7.62 cm). British painter Robert Smirke created the original design of the medal." Exchange the order of these two sentences, since the next few sentences are about the medal's design.
    • Use of the word "Currently" is frowned upon per MOS:CURRENTLY. you can replace it with something else. e.g. "As of <year of change>,". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • All done @MPGuy2824. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Support promotion based on prose and table accessibility. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I extensively reviewed the list at its peer review page and have nothing to add except support this list for promotion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the lead of the article to a level that I think meets the criteria. Everything else should be good too. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the team name on first usage
• "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks of gone on to play" => "Only four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play"
• Per MOS:COLOR, you cannot use just colour to highlight something, as readers with visual problems may not be able to identify the colours. You need to also use a symbol.
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• 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.
• One cell in every row should be the header cell and it should begin with a "!" instead of a "|". You can also use rowspan for the years, since a lot of them are in common. You should change the scope to "rowgroup" if you do this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition to this: replace "caption_text" with the actual text of the caption you want. --PresN 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you also take a look at this conversation. The same changes would need to be made in the table here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since their creation, the Kraken have drafted 28 players, the 2023 NHL entry draft being the third in which they participated. – The juxtaposition from picks to the 2023 being their third draft is choppy and needs rewording.
• You switch back and forth calling them Seattle and Kraken in the lead, pick one and stick with it.
• Down case 2021 NHL Entry Draft to 2021 NHL entry draft
• There's a lot of info that could be helpful that's not included in the second paragraph and I think it needs to be expanded to better explain the draft process a bit. A high level overview obviously, but this isn't as clear as I think it could be.
• After the end of his rookie 2022–23 season, Beniers won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the League’s best rookie – Remove "end of his rookie" from the first part of the sentence. The second part explains the award clearly enough that this information is redundant.
• ...managing 24 goals and 33 assists in 80 games. – Probably improved by replacing "managing" with "having accumulated".
• The Kraken's second overall draft pick in 2021 was the highest they have ever drafted. – Could be reworded to be better I think. Something like, "The highest the Kraken have ever drafted was in 2021, when they had the second overall pick." or "The Kraken have never selected higher than in 2021, when they had the second overall pick."
• Don't switch between using "second" in the lead and then using "1st-round pick" at the end. Be consistent, at least in prose, with the usage of words.
• Ref 5 missing publisher date
• Date format is inconsistent in sources
• Usage of publishers not consistent in refs (Ref 1 and 2 use "National Hockey League" while ref 3 uses "NHL.com")
• Inconsistent wikilinking of publishers, please wikilink publishers for consistency
• Ref 4 needs to be marked as a subscription being required
• The source uses combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
• Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, the see also section should not be linking to their first draft.

That's what I've got for now, though I think on a re-pass over I'll probably find more. Please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a few, but this is the feedback I have:

• Ref 4 – add |subscription=required
• The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
• Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
• The images need alt text added for accessibility
• ...Ryker Evans, Ryan Winterton, and 2022 fourth overall pick Shane Wright. – Remove the part about his pick. It's not specified for others so it's not necessary for Shane Wright.
• General ref 2 – Add <code>|website=[[Hockey-Reference.com]]</code>, publisher can stay since they're the parent company
• The table currently has a table title of "caption text"
• Second image uses "first" and "4th", switch it to "fourth" for consistency.
• This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NHL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
• Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
• If this is meant to be THE entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2021 NHL expansion draft not included?

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. The 2021 expansion draft was selecting players from 30 of the already existing teams, so it isn't the same as an entry draft. XR228 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XR228: There's a number of points you have failed to address, some of which this is the third time I'm mentioning:

• Ref 4 – For the third time, add |subscription=required to the reference, as a subscription is required to access the source
• The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately. Needs to be called out or explained in some way.
• Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
• This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NFL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.

Further feedback:

• General ref 1 – Change from publisher = |publisher=The Internet Hockey Database to |website=HockeyDB, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
• Draft picks are draft picks. I don't see a reason not to include other players that were drafted by this team.
• Add the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description for consistent date formatting

As mentioned, ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've made the changes. Also, there is a difference between an ENTRY draft and an EXPANSION draft. The FL List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks does not have any selections from Atlanta's expansion draft. XR228 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XR228: I understand there's a difference between entry and expansion drafts. I'm heavily involved with NFL articles, particularly draft list promotions, and we have had expansion drafts as well. @The Kip: has discussed the issue of the expansion draft with me at his nomination for the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't love the exclusion of it, and I genuinely believe it's relevant, but I'm willing to let it slide and not use that as a reason to oppose promotion of these lists.

• Prior to the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties – Close, but might be a bit too wordy. What about something like "As of the 2005–06 season, the NHL implemented new tiebreaker procedures, making ties no longer possible."?
• "Entry Drafts" should be lowercased.
• Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons.

I fixed the general reference myself. Again, please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, @PresN, any other changes that need to be made? XR228 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Table:
  • Individual references for Beniers, Evans, Winterton and Wright are needed to show their entire NHL career was with the Kraken.
  • Janicke (2021) was Left Winger.
  • Jackson (2022) was Centre.
  • Needs a reference to show the nationality of all of the players.

• Lead:
  • The entire first paragraph is uncited. All of the content should be cited like at List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks.
  • "Kraken have participated in three drafts and selected 28 players." -> four drafts and selected 36 players.
  • "The NHL entry draft is held each June" - not mentioned at the NHL guidelines.
  • "exceptions being players...age 18, 19, or 20." - this long sentence copies and closely paraphrases the four points from NHL operations. This quoted part should all be removed.
  • "order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - this part should be reworded a bit to meet WP:LIMITED to avoid similar wording at Entry Draft Order points at NHL operations.
  • "weighted lottery for the 16 non-playoff teams" - new updated source needed as the 2013 NHL Draft lottery source has 14 teams, not 16.
  • "four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play with the Kraken" - Condor 2024 doesn't mention Shane Wright. Need an extra citation here.
  • "The team with the fewest points has the best chance of winning the lottery," - New source needed as the NHL operations guidelines don't mention a lottery.

Oppose Based on the copyvio from NHL operations, I will have to oppose for now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @XR228. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hey man im josh. I didn't see this. My bad. I'll get to this as soon as I can. XR228 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's a few leftover points to go through:

• The entire first paragraph in the lead needs citations.
• order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - needs rewording to avoid close paraphrasing of NHL Operations.
• allowing the winner to move up to the first overall pick" - This isn't 100% correct. Only the top 11 teams can win the #1 pick (#1 can't move up anymore, #2-#11 can move up 10 spots to #1) per NHL.
• Table references for Benier, Evans, Winerton and Wright neeeded to show they only played with the Kraken. Otherwise, the shades and key can be removed

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kraken compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference and began play during the league's 2021–22 season," - Not verified by NHL 2018 as the team was not named yet, that they competed in the Western Conference/Pacific Division nor their first season was in 2021. An overall source about the Kraken's playing history and division/conference can work here.
• making them the second newest team in the NHL" - The 2018 NHL source says they were scheduled to debut in 2021, while the 2024 NHL source does not mention Seattle was the 2nd newest. A different source is needed that shows the 2 newest teams are Seattle (2021) and Utah (scheduled 2024).
• "Since their creation, the Kraken have participated in four drafts and selected 36 players" - Thank you for rewriting. This now needs a source.
• "any of the top 11 teams to move up to the first overall pick" -> " any of the top 11 teams to win the first overall pick" (since the #1 team can't move up anymore)

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. "as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" -> "as a member of the Pacific Division" (as HockeyDB doesn't say Western). Once that's adjusted, you'll be good to go verification wise! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the change. XR228 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333 can you change this to "Support" XR228 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thank you for the changes! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images relevant to the article - perhaps include more if appropriate? Please ping me if you do.
• All images have proper licenses
• All images have alt text - perhaps change them to specify a particular format of image? ie. "Photograph of the Kraken's first ever draft pick, Matty Berniers"
• All images have captions

Support on images. Thanks for your work @XR228! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Support! XR228 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the 1966 list having just been promoted and the 1967 having multiple supports, here's the 1968 list. This year's chart-toppers included a Brazilian Beatles cover, a French cover of a Luxembourgish contest entry, and a cover of a 1941 big band song about a train. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

• All images have alt text
• All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
• All images are relevant to the article
• All images are captioned appropriately

Support on images. Thanks again for your quality content :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and table accessibility. Sad that there is no usable image for the French orchestra leader who spent the most time on the top of this chart. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: - yup, sadly no free-use images of Paul Mauriat appear to be available and a fair-use image couldn't really be justified on this article.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

My only feedback is that ref 2 needs a publish date of November 14, 2011. Good job Chris, but you didn't stump me this time! Please ping me when that's been addressed I'll be happy to support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - done! I hadn't noticed this before and I don't know if it's to do with my geographical settings or something, but when I open that source, it displays the date you mention for about half a second before it changes to "13 years ago", which I deemed too vague to put in the citation. Weird..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I actually hovered over the "13 years ago" to see that date. I just happened to be curious if it would show me and it did! Anyways, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mendes would achieve a second number one 15 years after the first when he made a comeback in 1983. -- perhaps worth mentioning the song, since I read a similar example for Billy Joel.
• he would not return to the top of the chart until 1975. -- same as above for Campbell's comeback.
• Nothing more to add. Solid work again. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 should have 'Come to the Sunshine' in single quotes, and probably with the Ts in lowercase.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Adult contemporary charts are subscription only, so this should be indicated with a "url-access=subscription" in the refs, probably.
  • Even though the number ones can be seen without the need to subscribe......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point.

The actual article is perfect this time and I had to dip into the sourcing to have comments, lol. Really good work. I have a very short article at FAC in case you would like to return a review.--NØ 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--NØ 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of writers shortlisted for the annual BBC National Short Story Award. It's the first list article that I've made but, as far as I can tell, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "(previously known as the National Short Story Award, 2006-2007)" - I think "(known as the National Short Story Award in 2006 and 2007)" would work better
• "It is an annual short story contest in the United Kingdom which is open to UK residents and nationals" - I would move it to the first sentence i.e. "The BBC National Short Story Award is an annual....." and then move the bit about it being prestigious into the second sentence
• "the winners receives" - this should be easier "the winner receives" or "the winners receive" but not what you have currently
• Both notes need a full stop
• That's all I got - great first nom! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the feedback, I've made all the improvements you suggested Il lupa (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Sorting the results column should put the runner-ups between the winners and the short-listed candidates.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 2001 becomes !scope=row | 2001 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have fixed the results column sorting and added column and row scopes. I'm pretty sure I've done it correctly but please let me know if I'm wrong! Il lupa (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your changes look good. Another issue: The last column in every table sometimes has multiple references. You can use the {{Ref.}} template for each of the column headers to take care of this. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 I have updated the headers. Il lupa (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss any of these points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for all your feedback! I've gone through and updated everything apart from two small things:

• I agree that it would be better to change "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each..." to "As of 2017..." but I don't technically have a source for the year, I can just tell by looking at past winners. Given that, I'm not sure if I should change the sentence?
• I do not have a 2024 source for Sarah Hall.

If I've missed anything or made any mistakes, let me know. Il lupa (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: Thanks, just a couple of points pending. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the two points you've mentioned above, I think MOS:NOW gives some helpful advice about rewording.
• Lead has the BBC quote ""the most prestigious [award] for a single short story", but the more independent (London Met) has "one of the most prestigious for a single short story". I think it would be better to add the "one of" qualification, unless there is another good source.
• "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award has not had an all-male shortlist" - I think it should be "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award had not had an all-male shortlist"

Source review

• I made some changes suggested by scripts, including one for consistency in how dates appear. Please review to see if there are any issues with those changes.
• ISSN is not required for newspapers, but if you are including it then it should be there for all citations, for consistency.
• Some inconsistency in how sources are shown, e.g. first ref has BBC, but "Fifteenth BBC National Short Story Award shortlist revealed" has www.bbc.co.uk.
• publisher=The Globe and Mail location=Toronto - inconsistent with other cite news templates used here. I think it's best to just use work (or newspaper).
• Similarly, Belfast Telegraph should be either work or newspaper, not "publisher"
• WP:RSN has "no consensus" for reliability of The Spectator. I think for what it's supporting here, it's fine to use that publication.
• No concerns with the reliability and suitability of the other sources used, for the topic and the information supported.
• The info in the Notes is cited in the lead. Personally I'd prefer that the sources were added to the footnotes too, but it wouldn't be grounds for a source review failure if they were not.
• I think that the text Includes full text of story after the Creamer & Wood citation is fine, as there is no suitable parameter in the cite news template that I can see.
• What makes the BBC itself a suitable source for "It has been described as 'the most prestigious [award] for a single short story"?
• The quote in the previous bullet should be in double quotion marks. (MOS:DOUBLE)
• Spot check on "the richest prize in the world for a single short story" - no issues (except "Richard Lea" should appear as "Lea, Richard")
• "Rosemary Westwood" should appear as Rosemary "Westwood, Rosemary"
• Spot check on "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each" - supported by the source; but I wonder if it would be better to phrase this with something like "As of 2024..." given that later we find out that originally "while runners up received £3,000 and shortlisted writers £500 each". Also, the prizes might not always be the same amounts in future.
• "£500 each.[5][4]" - some editors prefer citations in numerical order. Not necessary to swap the five and four, but you could if you wanted to. (Same with "[4][1]" and "[16][1]")
• Spot check on "It was founded in 2005 and announced at the Edinburgh International Book Festival the same year" - no issues
• Optionally, you could add an author-link= parameter for Aida Edemariam.
• Spot check on "The BBC National Short Story Award has never had an all-male shortlist" - source is from 2018 so cannot support "never"
• Spot check on " In 2009, only women were featured on the shortlist" - no issues
• Spot check on "Sarah Hall, who won the award in 2013 and 2020, is the only writer to have won the award twice" - source is from 2020 so can't support info from after that. It's perhaps fair to argue that it is supported by the fully cited tables later in the article, but is there a 2024 source that confirms this?

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Per MOS:£, £ should only be wikilinked, if at all, at the first instance.
• "Canadian writer D. W. Wilson became the youngest ever recipient of the award in 2011" - consider adding the author's age at time of winning.
• I think that If a book is locked there's probably a good reason for that, don't you think? and And the moon descends on the temple that was might need some extra capitals - please review MOS:TITLECAPS and let me know what you think.

@Il lupa: Just making sure you're aware that feedback has been provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging me! Il lupa (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose I believe I've fixed all the issues except for the fact that I don't have a source for when the prize amounts changed so I can't see how to reword it to be clearer Il lupa (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: How about something like "Naomi Wood won the 2023 award for Comorbidities and received £15,000. The other four shortlisted writers received £600 each." ? (I realised that Wood wasn't mentioned in the intro.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Does Wood need to be mentioned in the intro? If not, I would probably be inclined to leave the lead as it is. Il lupa (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: no, so how about something like "In 2023 the winner received £15,000 and the other four shortlisted writers received £600 each."? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose I've switched up the wording and references slightly so it should now be clear and address your original concern. Let me know what you think! Il lupa (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: Thanks! All looks good now. Great work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:39, 27 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sixth list in a series on Seattle sports team seasons that I have brought to FLC, and one for one of the newer teams in the area. Seattle Reign FC are in their 12th season as a top-flight women's soccer team and have yet to win a league championship, but not for a lack of trying, with three podium finishes. The list is formatted similarly to List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which blends American sports lists with the international soccer standards. SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "the best performing team [....] with the most points" - is this not a bit tautological?
  • Removed "best performing" to make it clearer; American sports can have multiple ways of determining the "best" team.
• "The NWSL Cup champion" - is this the same thing as the NWSL Challenge Cup?
  • Fixed.
• "The Reign set the standalone single-match attendance record" - is the word "standalone" needed here? In this context does it not just mean the same as "single-match"?
  • Removed "single"; the Reign also have a higher reported attendance from a "doubleheader" with the Sounders where one ticket was good for both games on the same day, but separate numbers weren't released.
• "The winner of that competition qualifies for the FIFA Women's Club World Cup" - given that that competition hasn't launched yet, I think this needs to be in the future tense (this occurs in two places)
  • Fixed.
• That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, as always, and thanks for finding things to smooth out. SounderBruce 02:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• In the table you can remove the SC column since it has no data.
  • The SC column is for a new annual tournament that will begin in a few weeks' time. It is expected to be a regular and major event, so I think it warrants its own column.
• Italics seems to be for an ongoing competition, but it is used in the 2020 season's row.
  • Removed.
• The Div cells can be merged since they have been in the same Division since their inception. Ditto for the League column.
  • These are standard across soccer lists due to other leagues employing promotion and relegation. There is also a chance that the table could be transcluded into History of professional soccer in Seattle, which would also include the lower-division women's teams in the area.
• Sorting the CC column in descending order should show SF, the QF, then GS, right?
• Similar issue with the result column for the other competitions. Also, I think you can replace "W" with "1st", for consistency with the "Position" column.
  • These are sorted similar to other soccer lists for simplicity, since the sort anchor is by the number of teams remaining at each stage of the competition (e.g. 01 for winning, 04 for semifinals, 08 for quarterfinals).
• That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have made one change and replied to your other points. SounderBruce 00:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPGuy2824: Just checking in. SounderBruce 22:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @MPGuy2824: just chipping in to say that I personally would disagree with I think you can replace "W" with "1st", for consistency with the "Position" column. Teams are never said to have finished "first" in a single-elimination competition, only in one which is league/round-robin based.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True. I've striken out that point. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Added.
• I think the position column could be titled better. Is it their division placement, their placement in the regular season, what is this?
  • Added tooltip description.
• Several of the cells in the total column should probably be combined and greyed out, or at least greyed out to indicate they aren't going to be filled, such as the playoffs, CC, SC, and "other" columns. They're not really a good thing to try to summarize the "total" of at that location.
  • Grayed out most of the columns.
• Do the statistics included in the table include all playoff statistics as well? I'm not sure how it works in soccer stat tracking, which is why I'd like to know about this.
  • Playoffs are not counted in the main table, per international norms that treat them as secondary competitions.
• Is the intent, should the Reign finish last in a season, to list their position as "last", or to list the actual placement number? If it's not the text "last", then
  • Removed, as hopefully it won't ever need to be used. It was a holdover from tables that indicate promotion and relegation, which is very unlikely to be implemented anytime soon in NWSL.
• Is there any reason that Rapinoe islisted ahead of Balcer in the 2022 row? I believe we typically order alphabetically by last name in instances of ties
  • Rapinoe had more assists, so she is listed first in FBref; this is a pretty common tiebreaker when determining the Golden Boot winner for many leagues.
• Have you always only wikilinked on first mention of a source in references? You're consistent in doing so here, for the most part. I obviously prefer to link everytime, since references get added and changed, but I was just seeking clarity before my next comment
  • Either wikilink more than the first occurence, or
  • Ref 27 – Remove link to Sports Reference
    • Removed. I prefer to only link the first instance in citations.
• Refs 1, 2, 4, 6 – Add a subscription needed tag, I'm assuming you have a Seattle Times subscription given your interests :P
  • Added a limited tag, as the paywall usually allows for some free articles.
• Refs 14 and 27 – I believe the convention would be to change "FBref" to FBref.com and wikilink in 14 but not 27
  • Added.

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SounderBruce, as it seems like they didn't see this comment yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: All comments addressed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 23:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brindille1

• "The team has the fourth-highest average attendance among NWSL franchises with 13,609 spectators per match" - Should make this clear that it's the highest average for a single season.
  • Added.
• The prose and the "Key to competitions" should explain the NWSL Fall series
  • Added.
• "A concurrent cup tournament, the NWSL Challenge Cup" - What is this concurrent with? Also, this tournament has restructured and the prose should mention that
  • Added.
• The "Key to competitions" should include The Women's Cup
  • Added.
• In "Key to cup record", NH, DNE, QR, PR Ro16, and Ro32 are unused and can be removed (Ro32 and R16 are also out of order).
  • The key would be incomplete without a full set, so I don't think it would be worth removing them. Fixed the order of the rounds.
• It seems unnecessary to include the League and especially the Div. The club plays in the same league and there's no pro/rel
  • As explained above, it is to maintain consistency across other soccer lists and allow for future transclusion.
• I don't see the playoff results on the FBREF page that's been cited
  • Having trouble finding a good citation for this (NWSL recordkeeping is notoriously poor), but will add one eventually. SounderBruce 06:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The source for Rapinoe's 51 goals doesn't indicate that she's the club's all-time leading scorer.
  • Added a source.

Brindille1 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brindille1: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes to the list. SounderBruce 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brindille1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several featured lists covering the international goals of several prominent footballers, but Pelé's is not yet among those. I've significantly expanded the lead and sourced all of his goals, so I'm hopeful this now meets the FL criteria. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pelé made his debut for Brazil in a 1–2 defeat" => "Pelé made his debut for Brazil in a 2–1 defeat" (the norm is to always write the higher score first, regardless of the result from the team in question's perspective (e.g. "England drop further points at home in their Euro 2025 qualifying campaign as they fall to a 2-1 defeat by group leaders France", "the Portland Timbers suffered a 2-0 loss to Charlotte FC at Bank of America on Saturday night", "FC Dallas Suffers 2-0 Defeat to Seattle Sounders FC in Postseason Opener")
• "Following the tournament, he was nicknamed" - this would be far more appropriate in the previous paragraph, where the tournament in question is discussed
• "Although Brazil came runners-up" => "Although Brazil were runners-up"
• "and included in the Time list" - link Time
• Note a needs a full stop
• Conversely note c does not
• "He was surpassed by Northern Ireland's Norman Whiteside in the 1982 FIFA World Cup" => "He was surpassed by Northern Ireland's Norman Whiteside at the 1982 FIFA World Cup"
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All done, I think, @ChrisTheDude. Thank you as always for the comments. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! style="text-align: center;"|1 becomes !scope=row | 1 (on its own line).
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• This applies to all the tables. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824, I think it's done. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For each table in the Statistics section, every row needs a header cell. The first cell seems most appropriate for these 3 tables. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824, I'd somehow missed those. I think that's done as well now. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The cities and countries listed in the venue columns really don't need to be linked, following the formats of other international goal lists. WP:SOB
• The Argentina flag in the hat-trick list is an alt version and should be changed.

Idiosincrático (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Idiosincrático. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and a couple of general comments below. Happy to disuss any of these. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose, responses below. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Footballdatabase.eu is user generated content (see discussion at RSN)
  • Replaced. –S
• What makes Sambafoot a reliable source?
  • I haven't seen any issues with it at RSN and it's the only source that shows specifically what goals were scored by who in the two matches it's cited for. I'm happy to replace it with 11v11.com if you disagree. –S
    • It looks like a gambling-focused site, so probably more regulated than a general one. On reflection, seems fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Goal (website) could be "Goal"
  • Is it not like that already? –S
    • I must have been looking at the edit view and confused myself. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Spot check on "Pelé scored seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player." - what's the support in the source for this being "the most of any Brazilian player"?
  • Added another source to better support this. –S
• Spot check on "one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - no issues
• "At the 1958 FIFA World Cup, Pelé was at the time the youngest player to participate in a World Cup" - as this is supported by the Mukherjee source (#9) rather than by the FIFA one (#10), I think it would be better to have #9 inline in the body as well as attached to the note.
  • Placed inline as well. –S
• Spot check on "He finished the tournament with six goals, behind a record-breaking Just Fontaine, and was named best young player of the tournament" - not all supported by the cited page.
  • The source does show that he won best young player and came second in the Golden Boot race. That being said, I've added another source specifically to support the fact that Just Fontaine broke the record for most goals. –S
• "he was nicknamed O Rei (The King)" - I'm not seeing support for this in the cited source.
  • Added another source to support this. –S
• Spot check on "emerged as a worldwide black sporting star" - no issues.
• Spot check on "scored his final international goal on 11 July 1971 against Austria, and made his final appearance for Brazil against Yugoslavia on 18 July 1971." - no issues
• "Pelé is widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time and was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century." - seems a fair statement given the Olympics source which provides next inline citation, and the following sources cited.
• Spot check on "included in the Time list of the 100 most important people of the 20th century," - no issues. It really was by Kissinger.
  • I also did a double take when I first saw that. –S

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• I accepted the changes to the list suggested by scripts about hyphens/dashes and replacing curly quotes with straight - please check, and revert if required.
  • Changes are fine, thanks. –S
• I see there have been a couple of recent changes to the article. I think the restoration on 13 July is reasonable.
  • The editor had added non-full international appearances which, to my understanding, are never included in these sorts of lists. –S
• "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer"/"seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player"/"He is the only footballer to have won three World Cups and is one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - these statements will possibly become outdated. Consider rephrasing (e.g. to the effect "As of 2024, ...")
  • I think "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer" is fine as is. I've added something for the other two statements. –S
• In the Goals table, is 1–2 meant to appear between 1–1 and 2–0 in the Result column when it is sorted?
  • That's how it appears on other featured lists; is there a better way of sorting it? –S
    • That's fine then, it just didn't quite seem sequential. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The sorting by date in the Hat-tricks table doesn't seem to work properly.
  • Fixed. –S

• Support. I'm satisfied with the responses to my comments, both about sources and general. Meets the FL criteria as far as I can see. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third Inkigayo list that I am nominating to become a featured list. The format of this list is similar to the previous two lists. Appreciate any feedback. -- EN-Jungwon 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "since July, 2016" remove the comma.
• Does Korea use the mdy system of writing dates?
• Their singles "Knock Knock", "Signal" and "Likey" ranked number one for three weeks each and achieved a triple crowns in 2017, while "Heart Shaker" went on to achieve a triple crown the following year.
• You can remove the row stating that '"—" denotes an episode did not air that week.' since this info appears in the 'key' table. Alternatively, you can make sure that it always sorts at the bottom.
• 'Prior to her official debut, Minseo took her first award win for "Yes".' This is begging for more explanation.
• That's all I got. Please ping me here after you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 all done. Majority of Korea related articles use mdy format. From what I can tell this seems to be the accepted format. For Minseo, there is a detailed explanation at Minseo_(singer)#2015–2017:_Pre-debut:_Superstar_K_7,_"Monthly_Yoon_Jong-shin" (last paragraph). It is also mentioned in the source. -- EN-Jungwon 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find anything specific in the MOS for dates in Korea-related articles. The date formatting seems consistent throughout the article, so ok.
• Minseo's pre-debut debut: If you can manage to put the explanation in a few words and incorporate it in that the sentence, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Korea uses YMD (e.g. 2024년 6월 6일 -> 2024 June 6). There is no established preference in the English language in Korea for MDY or DMY, although you'll often see MDY because Korea leans closer to the American side of the Anglosphere.

  My understanding is that we follow MOS:DATERET for articles without strong MOS:DATETIES (e.g. if the article is about UK–Korea ties then maybe DMY is more appropriate?). Whichever style the primary contributer to the article uses, we follow. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 I couldn't think of a good way to put an explanation there so I removed the mention of Minseo's pre-debut. I don't think it's that relevant to this list so it shouldn't become a big issue. Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to reply. -- EN-Jungwon 18:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, in the Music Bank 2023 FLC you suggested that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. I was thinking about it and wondered if something like this would be acceptable to make the column sort correctly. -- EN-Jungwon 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO somebody looking at the wikicode would be able to understand why those particular numbers are used. So, yes, your linked diff would be acceptable. Visually, (and for screen readers) the emdashes being the header cell in rows still seems weird to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Since all the sources are in Korean, which I can't read, I'll have to wait for a source review, but I'm expecting to support at that point. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images have alt text except for the one with Sunmi.
• All images relevant to the text
• All images captioned appropriately
• All images sourced under appropriate licenses

Thanks for your work @Jungwon and @Explicit. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction, added alt text to Sunmi's image. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Note that I assumed good faith on machine translations and made some changes to some of the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest nomination in this series. In this particular year, Frank Sinatra continued to be the top performer on the chart and unusually not one but two number ones did so poorly at top 40 radio that they didn't enter Billboard's pop chart, the Hot 100, at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• " "Cold" was the final number one of the year and would prove to be Gary's only Easy Listening chart-topper and his final entry on either that listing or the Hot 100" - A few sentences before this it is mentioned that Cold didn't reach the Hot100 at all.
  • @MPGuy2824: Correct, but he had other songs which did. My point is that it was his last song to appear on either chart i.e. he never charted again on either chart. If the wording could be made clearer, let me know -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would "last entry on any Billboard chart" do? Assuming that is accurate, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Trouble is then I would technically have to source that he didn't chart on any of the dozens of other charts Billboard publishes (I am reasonably certain he didn't, but technically I would need to prove his absence from every single one of them since 1968). How about something like "After Cold, he would not have another easy listening or pop chart entry".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, its a problem to prove a negative. Reading only your suggested sentence, it still sounds like the song was in the pop chart too. Since this piece of info (regarding him never being on the pop charts after 1967) isn't related to this list anyway, maybe you could leave it out OR wait for another reviewer to give a better suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "In contrast to the song by the Sinatras which was both an easy listening and pop number one, two singles in 1967 reached number one on the Easy Listening chart but failed to enter the Hot 100 at all. Both "It's Such a Pretty World Today" by Andy Russell and "Cold" by John Gary were Easy Listening chart-toppers but did not achieve sufficient crossover success to even reach number 100 on the Hot 100." - A lot of overlap in these two sentences. Maybe consider a merge.
  • @MPGuy2824: - tweaked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion, since the only issue left is minor. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed the contentious sentence to "after it exited the Easy Listening chart he never achieved another entry on either that listing or the Hot 100". I genuinely don't believe this reads as saying that "Cold" was also a pop hit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1967, Billboard magazine published a chart ... The chart, which in 1967 was entitled ... In 1967, 18 songs topped the chart based -- I think the 2nd and third instances of mentioning the year 1967 could be tweaked, or perhaps just the third instance only, since it is assumed that 18 songs topped the chart that year.
• That's all I have. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• File:Ed Ames.JPG - uses fixed px, consider "upright"
• Images all have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]