Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2021

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, with 69 of these number-one country song lists now at WP:FL, here's what I hope will be #70 (don't worry everyone - we're nearing the end now :-)). In this particular year, pop singer Bebe Rexha set a new record for the longest run atop the Hot Country Songs chart, with what remains her only track ever to enter the chart at all. Coincidentally, the artist who ended her run was the same artist who had ended the previous record run. As ever, all comments will be most gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• In the last non-ref column, McCreery should sort before Morris.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding at the top of the table seems fine. I checked sorting on all columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - many thanks. I spent ages staring at the listing for McCreery trying to figure out why it was sorting after Morris, until it finally dawned on me that the issue was actually with the listing for Morris, which was set to sort on her forename, which coincidentally also starts with M. Resolved now, anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will try to take a look at this tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• " In 2018, three different songs topped the Hot Country Songs chart and 32 different songs topped Country Airplay in 52 issues of the magazine." - Maybe this is just me being stupid, but there seem to be 53 different issues included in the list? Also, I counted 5 times and got 33 songs for Airplay each time, although that may be a counting error on my part.
• " Due to a change in Billboard's chart dating policy, the first chart of 2018 was dated January 3, four days after the previous one - Is a source needed to confirm that the previous one was four days before and that it was due to a policy change? The Jan 3 and Jan 6 dates are obviously cited to things elsewhere in the list, but I wonder if those two other points may need sources
• "McKinley, Jr., James C. (October 26, 2012). "Changes to Charts by Billboard Draw Fire". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 3, 2012. Retrieved May 24, 2013." - Archive date should be November 3, 2012 it looks like based on the archive (it's kinda hard to archive a source before it was published)
• Image licensing looks proper (not an expert in that area).
• I'm familiar with most of the sources, and they all appear to be reliable, and the formatting error above seems to be the only issue on the formatting front.

Anticipate supporting once the comments above get worked through. Hog Farm _Talk 00:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - many thanks for your review, all addressed now (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and also pass on source review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the references be centered?

That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 23:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: - refs are now centred -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 17:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because I think it fits the criteria and I have done all the necessary corrections, following the examples of the previous featured lists that I helped nominating. Feel free to contribute! Leo Mercury (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "for the romantic drama film Two Lover (2008)" - typo in the film title
• "In 2011, she starred as Holly Holliday on the musical comedy-drama television series Glee,[3] that won her" => "In 2011, she starred as Holly Holliday on the musical comedy-drama television series Glee,[3] which won her"
• That's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• non-source related, though I do wonder why Shakespeare in Love is called a "historical romance film" when its article calls it a "romantic period comedy-drama"

Formatting

• Generally all caps should be avoided for titles—unless an acronym (ref 19 & 32)
• (Recommendation) Add trans-title= for non-english refs that would benefit from it (refs 5, 19, 22)

Reliability

• My reliabillity script has PR Newswire as a "generally unreliable source". Though not a huge issue, I do wonder if the source could be substituted.

Verifiability

• Seems fine Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Aza24. I've edited all the sources. --Leo Mercury (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to help—looks great now, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All 42 out of 42 reference are archived.
• Wikilink Anthony Breznican in the second citation.
• The title for #3 #4 should be "The 71st Academy Awards | 1999".
• The title for #4 #8 should be "Film in 1999" to avoid repetitiveness.
• Add a space between E!Online to make it E! Online.
• Wikilink Todd McCarthy in reference #24.

That's it from me. Ping me when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dude From North Carolina, all done! --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Happy to support. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.

Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.

Removed. ~ HAL333 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.

I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL333 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Wikipedia's readers well and should be promoted to FL status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support! Ham II (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I beg redemption! I was sick for this whole semi-hiatus, so I was only able to edit mobile, and for some reason the app Wikipedia doesn't want me to go to project/talk pages. Anyway, I think the whole list is good for now, so I'm supporting. GeraldWL 07:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Sorry for the impasse; I've resumed reviewing this nomination. Ham II (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table accessibility review (MOS:DTAB): The tables seem to have 2 rowscopes per row; only the "primary" column should be marked with `scope="row"`. --PresN 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~ HAL333 23:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

• Why are the states yellow?

I was trying to make flags with white backgrounds more visible. Doesn't quite work, but I'm trying to fix it. ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are the other cells the darker gray that is reserved for headers?

Isn't it just a normal column with scope? ~ HAL333 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Statue of John E. Kenna" is in yellow

Oops. Looks like Reywas92 already got to it. ~ HAL333 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The reliance on the Architect of the Capitol's website is unfortunate when these statues have been covered in secondary sources

I don't consider the Architect of the Capitol a primary source. They didn't commission or sculpt the statues - they just house them. Similar to using the Louvre or MOMA as a source for works in their collection. But I might be wrong. ~ HAL333 13:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The formatting and reliably of the sourcing passes

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "except for Virginia which" could link.
• "statues..." non-breaking space before the ellipsis per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• ...commemoration." provide the source for this quote directly after the quote.
• "2000, Congress amended a law to allow states to replace their" when did Congress allow for two statues per state?

Added back the full quote for clarity. ~ HAL333 02:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Date placed" etc is more like "Year placed".
• I'm not sure the flags are anything other than decorative here.
• Felix de Weldon small d.
• "House corridor, 2nd Floor" what is this and why is "Floor" capitalised?
• Jean-Antoine Houdon hyphenated first name.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to address your concerns. Sorry for the tardiness. ~ HAL333 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reywas92 Sorry to comment after this has been up for so long already but here are my thoughts:

• I know there's the separate main article for further prose details, but the lead is a little short. More specifically, I don't like that one of the three paragraphs is just about the Confederate statues, but the other subjects aren't mentioned at all, so this should have additional summarization of National Statuary Hall Collection#Demographics.

Expanded the lede. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It could also count how many are bronze or marble and in each location and summarize the sculptors who have made multiple statues. I'm surprised the main article doesn't mention that at all either; like, Niehaus needs a shout-out for making eight of them including removals.

Done. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be more work than you want to do, but I think it would be nice to have another column that gives in a sentence/sentence fragment why each subject is notable/why the state chose them.

I thought about doing that. Yeah, it would be a bit of work, but it would also dissuade the reader from clicking on these individual biographies and interacting with those articles - the real purpose of any list. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that's a very poor reason not to include descriptions. When you have a hundred names, the vast majority of which unfamiliar even to someone well versed in American history, a snippet will make people more likely to click on someone who sounds interesting out of such a large list. Now perhaps the detail in my current nom National Trails System is enough to satisfy a reader enough not to click through, but with just a hundred personal names, how I am supposed to know what biographies I might want to interact with? For those of my home state of Indiana, something as simple as "Governor during the Civil War" and "Civil War general who wrote Ben-Hur" would be enough to pique my interet. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like having the descriptions column. I hope this list can still be promoted even though there's a bit of disagreement on this one thing. This is something we can easily sort out on the article's talk page and should not impact FL status. Let's get this list promoted already! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reader is quite capable of determining what piques their interest and clicking on the article to learn more. A list does not need to have a summary of each entry. Imagine if we tried to summarize each film in a filmography or give an anatomical overview of each species in a list. Furthermore, much of the descriptions will be largely irrelevant as they are not the reasons the state selected them. Sure James Paul Clarke was a governor and senator, but that doesn't make him unique and doesn't even explain why Arkansas selected him. This is simply beyond the scope of this list. ~ HAL333 21:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, questions like these are above my pay grade, but this happens to be a question I had to research for my own nominations, and I couldn't find evidence that a list like this one needs an extra column with biographical information. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the default sort is by state, you should merge the two state cells that are on top of each other in the first column (rowspan=2).
• I also don't think the first column needs to be yellow. Not a deal-breaker, but I usually prefer the default colors unless there's an explanatory reason.
• "Statue" in Note 1 should be capitalized to match what it's quoting
• Bronze and marble could be linked in the lead rather than in every row 100 times.
• The title of the ref for Helen Keller doesn't match the rest
• The main table uses "Year placed" but the Former uses "Date placed"
• Thomas Starr King has its precise location but none of the rest do, would be nice to have them all.

I decided to remove it. The sourcing is very scarce on the exact location of many of the statues, and it seemed weird to have the exact location of only a few... ~ HAL333 16:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version before you started editing this has all of them, and looking through the sources and their respective articles, there are decent enough sources for every one of them, so I don't quite follow. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't DC's Douglass statue be included?

That one's not technically part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Douglass isn't part of the collection I'm not sure why you mentioned him in the lead now. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92^Talk 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer that last point: The statue was originally included in the list, but since the Architect of the Capitol's website clearly states the statue is not part of the collection, I said it should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reywas92 Sorry for the delay, but hopefully I have addressed all of your concerns. ~ HAL333 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs should probably be the publisher for ref 111
• fine otherwise

Reliability

• no issues

Verifiability

• seems fine throughout.
• Not much to say, thorough sourcing all around. Pass for source review, the top comment isn't pertinent enough to prevent this. . Aza24 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review, Aza. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive and fundamental. I'd also like to get consensus on frequency of linked vs. unlined definitions. Neopeius (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dates are a mixture of M-D-Y and D-M-Y

  Will hunt down and make consistent

  Fixed.

  Look at 1942 and 1943. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the entries are missing citations:

  20 June, 14 September, 7, 9 7 December 1944; all of 1946; etc

  Yes, I need to make a final look through.

  Please look again. Every entry has at least one citation. The trick is where to put them when they refer to the whole document. In general, I put them after "remarks" since that's the final displayed entry on the left.

  Put them all in the remarks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The only time I don't is if there's nothing in the remarks -- it creates a blank line with just a citation number in it.

• 20 June 1944, 10, 29 May 1945, 13, 28 June 1945, 9, 19, 30 July 1945 etc

• There are a lot of Template:351–352 (V-2 NO. 15) type red links. Are these supposed to be page numbers?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: They are, thanks. I'll go through and fix them. My biggest question is this: in the actual chronology, should I link every item (rocket, launch pad, etc.) or just the first appearance in each year? --Neopeius (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the first occurrence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed rp errors and first links.

@Hawkeye7:Fixing now, thank you. What do you think of article text and the summary at the bottom? --Neopeius (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my article is now in shape for a deep dive. I added the British 1945 Backfire V-2 launches too.

Did you know there is a complete V-2 on its mobile launcher just down the road? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:I did not. Whereabouts are you? :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Canberra. You can see the V-2 here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh neat! Hey, are you familiar with Kerrie Dougherty? She's a friend of mine. Wonderful person. --Neopeius (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Make you a deal -- if you finish your review of this article, I'll GA review the behemoth that is Galileo_(spacecraft) :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Four UK launches are in the summary, but not the table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)'[reply]

Fixed, thank you. :) Hawkeye7

The template down the bottom looks weird. Suggest making a ribbon version, or moving it to below the infobox. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Do you support this article for FAC? --Neopeius (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I Support it for FLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Smartie. :) Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would remove the pie chart from the country breakdown; the information is already clear from the country table since there are only three entries.

@Balon Greyjoy: I shall take it under advisement. :) I wanted all my pages to have the pretty pie chart for consistency with the other timeline pages...

• The sentence starting "By 1944" has a reference for that year only; I'm confused why that needs a reference if the separate record information has its own reference.

So, this is complicated. :) Dornberger's book talks about the flight but doesn't say when it was. The other reference suggests it was in 1944. That said, now that I've found a better reference for the actual flight, I've fixed it.

• "began development of their own heavy sounding rocket" I think that should be "its own heavy sounding"

Navies are people too! Okay, fixed.

• "The Soviet Union also launched a series of captured V-2s in 1947. These flights, totalling 11," Why not combine this to say "The Soviet Union launched 11 captured V-2s in 1947..."

Because your version is better. Fixed.

• "and the rocket was deployed for battle operations in 1950" Battle operations makes it sound like this is a tactical and short-range missile; I'm assuming something this powerful would be a strategic weapon, not something fired in a battle.

Changed to "combat"

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I think using "combat" is an aggressive word; looking through the list of launches it doesn't look like the R-1 was ever used in combat. Maybe change to "military operations" to demonstrate that it was ready to be used as a weapon, but it was never used in a violent manner.

• I would remove "ultimately" as its sufficient to say that it was never developed.

fixed

• I think there should be a comma after the Viking 5 launch date

Apparently, with the European style of dating, commas are not needed after the year. The source I found on it specifically said, "This will look weird to American readers." If you find a source to the contrary, please let me know!

• "measure the extremely low air densities" I woud remove "extremely" and probably even "low," as its not like a vacuum was something people didn't know about until space travel, and its only 1 atmosphere away from what we have on the surface.

Clever. I have visions of Jovians saying, "1000 kilopascals? That's practically hard vacuum!"

• "impressed into scientific duty by both superpowers" This reads like the V-2s were forced to conduct research against their will. I would say they were used for scientific research. Also, I would state the countries, as its not clear who the two superpowers are the way this is written.

Fixed both, though there's only ever been two superpowers...

China, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Ancient Rome would like a word! But seriously, I could understand it in a Cold War article, but I think a user looking to learn about spacecraft launches shouldn't be expected to know which countries are the superpowers in question.

• "some 63 had been launched" Were there 63 launches? If so, why add "some" to the beginning?

Colloquial. Removed 63.

• There's a rule about not starting a sentence with digits. (MOS:NUMNOTES) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But the sentence could still be started with something like "There were 63 launches..." Using "some" makes it sound like an approximation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point since the sentence doesn't start with 63. :)

• "at least one returned three minutes of usable data" This is a little confusing as its not clear what three minutes of usable data means; is it a lot/little? Did the other missions bring back usable data, but not three minutes worth?

Unfortunately, all I know is that one of the flights (and not which one) returned three minutes of usable data. I suspect that's as much data as could be expected to be obtained. I could delete' "three minutes of" if you think the confusion value of the phrase exceeds its information value.

I do think deleting "three minutes of" would be the right call. In this context, the length of time doesn't really explain the amount of data returned, and I think it's confusing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back later with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I have. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Addressed all issues! Only the last point is unchanged pending your suggestion. Thanks very much for your help. I'm almost done with 1951, as it happens... --Neopeius (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Okiedokie. :) Fixed both issues. Thanks very much for your help! (and if you're interested, check out 1951 in spaceflight... --Neopeius (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this from WP:AV. Planning to look through this (very, not very?) soon. GeraldWL 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your attention! :)

• Support -- concerns addressed. Nice job! GeraldWL 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Very much obliged! --Neopeius (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing in response to an invitation on my talk page. The article is very complete and well presented, but I would like to offer the following comments:

• The lead seems a bit short and imprecise, and I'm not sure that it defines the topic - not least as the spaceflight covered in this article is a bit different to what the average person considers space flight to be

I inherited this page even if almost all of the text is new. Spaceflight seems to be any launch by a vehicle, one example of which crossed the 60 mile line. But I think the sticking issue is describing it as "human spaceflight" which suggests the flying of people. I've shortened it to simply "spaceflight" with the hope that no aliens are reading this to take offense.

Were I to expand the lead, what would you want to see? This is definitely the shortest of the leads I've written for this series, although not by a significant amount. (Note: I just fleshed out the rest of the early Vikings since it was weird to just spotlight Viking 5, and Viking 4 also went into space. I just cribbed my own language from the Viking article -- in which I had earlier cribbed my language from this article! The virtues of writing in a modular fashion.)

The lead should summarise the full content of the article, so should discuss the military and civilian activities covered in the article (the nature of these programs, the number of launches, etc). Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've summarized what can be summarized at this point. If there's anything you think needs expansion, please let me know. The current length is comparable to that of the next three articles now.

• The first para of the 'Overview' section should make it clear that the V-2 was being developed as a weapon

Quite right. Done.

• "its own heavy sounding rocket, the Viking" - can "Viking" be linked here?

Done.

• I'm not sure what the purpose of the flag of Allied occupied Germany or the post-war Germanies against the V-2 labels is. As I understand it, production of V-2s ceased with the end of the war, so these weapons were produced during the Nazi era of Germany. These launches were then conducted by the various Allied governments (Germany was not self governing during the first part of this period). The flag suggests that the missiles were either produced in occupied Germany, or the German government was involved, neither of which is correct. Aside from misleading readers, this also fails to recognise that these missions were the continued results of the appalling slave labour program under the Nazi regime by implying that the rockets were produced separately. The history here is obviously very complex, and this is might be an example of where attempts to use images to simplify things don't work in practice?

This is another artifact of having inherited the article. This was the topic of vociferous debate some time ago, and the decision executed on the page appears to have been the agreed-upon solution. It does keep from cluttering up the page with a profusion of swastikas. I think also the idea was that the borrowed expertise was no longer 3rd Reich but what came after. (production of the V2 did not quite cease with the war -- some were assembled from pieces afterwards; also, the R1 is an almost exact copy of the V2, though by Russians.) ((as for the nasty nature of the Nazis, you'll get no argument from me! Most of my relatives were lost in that blight on history...))

I don't agree: these were not rockets produced by the post-war German Government. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do. Like I said -- this argument is outstanding from a decade ago, and this is how I inherited it. What would you do?

Replace the Flags with Nazi-era flags or, better still, remove all the flags. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former is possible, though I'd want consensus. The latter is not. --Neopeius (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have replaced the V-2 flags with Swastikas, and I made the R-1s solely CCCP (the R-1 might be a virtual copy of the V-2, but the Tu-2 isn't a B-29 so neither is the R-1 a V-2 :) That satisfy you, @Nick-D:? --Neopeius (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why the data in the 'Suborbital launch summary' section is limited to 1945 onwards? As the article notes more than 3000 V-2 combat launches and quite a lot of test launches, the omission of data before this date means that these data presented are incomplete. Is it possible to include the German launches here, or are there problems with the data? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3000 launches is quite a lot. The general trend for these articles seems to have been to include all of the testing launches of vehicles that broke the 60m line but not necessarily the operational launches of purely military ballistic missiles that never again crossed into space. As this page is already a bit long, there is no good documentation of every single V2 launch, and such would be of little benefit to anyone (and certainly would have only the most tangential connection with spaceflight), my compromise was to list the early test flights, spotlight the one wartime flight into space, and summarize the rest. The other option would have been to start post-war, but that didn't seem cricket, either.

I'm not suggesting that each V-2 launch be listed, but am querying why the total numbers of launches are not included in the statistics at the end of the article, given the result of the current approach looks a bit odd. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is spaceflight, and including the 3000 V2s (I'm not sure exact numbers exist) would utterly skew the graphs into worthlessness. Hence starting in 1945. :) --@Nick-D:

Thank you so very much for your attention. Do let me know what you think. @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I gave the text of the article a thorough reworking and reorganization. I think it's better now and matches the other articles. It was written first so I hadn't settled into a routine yet. All the facts are the same, but now their presentation is better. --Neopeius (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note

This nomination was never actually transcluded onto WP:FLC, and therefore was never actually an official nomination. It still has a bunch of comments, presumably from people and wikiprojects that were directly notified, but it's in an awkward position of being really, really old with no comments for a month, but also new. I've also deleted a similar nomination for 1951 in spaceflight that never got a single comment that was also not actually put on the nominations page. @Neopeius: if you were wondering why this nomination was so slow and stalled... this is why. --PresN 15:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Huh! Yes, that was rather surprising. Thank you for that. I'll renominate...correctly! What do I do about this one? It's gotten momentum so I'd hate to kill it. --Neopeius (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: I've gone ahead and listed this nomination here onto FLC, and put a note on the talk page about it; since you already have three supports and another in-depth review ongoing, I think it's fine to just leave this one up to see if it gets a broader reviewer pool. For example: I'm concerned about the accessibility of the table, with the very non-standard section header rows in the middle of it which basically make it nested tables. I just can't see how that doesn't break the page altogether as far as screen readers are concerned, and I think the result is that you have a table with the actual headers, but then the body is a series of subtables with their own headers that aren't really headers (plus remarks, which doesn't have any real connection to it's "header"). I get that you're using a template, not a raw wikitable, but I'm suspicious that the template just isn't MOS-compliant at all. @Graham87: sorry to ping you directly; can you confirm whether or not the big table Spaceflight before 1951 is actually parseable by screen readers as-is? --PresN 01:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: It's parseable (surprisingly so) but not ideal ... on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is completely inaccessible and 10 is perfect, I'd give it about a four or a five. I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of table formatting to know how to fix it myself though. Graham87 02:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: @Graham87: Thank you for your attention. Is my template different from the template for all of the other Timeline articles? As far as I know, it's the same format for all of them. --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for your kind attentions. I have already taken the lessons learned to the 1951 article and I plan to do so for the other ones I've done (and then beyond to new ones). This has all been extremely helpful.

@PresN: do we have a sufficient number of supports for promotion? :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just vote counting, but yes, I think there's been a sufficiently broad and deep review of the list at this point. Except for the source review, which I'll do now:

• I'm just going to go ahead and fix formatting things myself, and let you know what they are, as I dislike trying to describe things in a back-and-forth.
• Titles should be title case, even if the source is all caps, per MOS:CAPS- you're allowed to make the formatting of titles look right, regardless of what the source has it as
• If you're going to cite the same source 3 times (different pages each time) as you do with the Naval Research Laboratory Report No. R-3030, please make sure the formatting is the same for all 3. This will also help in noting that you cited the same table twice in two separate refs.
• You don't need to put incorporation marks (Inc., Ltd., etc.) in with the names of publishing companies
• Cites to a website need the "|website" parameter, not just the name of the author (aka Mark Wade); while you can technically put it in "|publisher", that's supposed to be reserved for the publishing company (if different than the website name)
• It was mentioned above, but you have to pick either the "|first |last" combo or "|author", you shouldn't mix them
• If you link one journal (which you did for Science) you need to link all publications (and probably publishers)- I just removed the link instead since it seemed like you were going for an unlinked style
• You archived a couple web sources, but not consistently- the easy way to do it is to go to the article's History tab, click "Fix dead links" at the top, login if you need to, check the "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" box, and hit "Analyze". The bot will archive everything for you.
• The sources themselves check out, and the dubious-looking ones were discussed above, with the exception of I-Spy Space; looks like it's because the author is the author of a book you're citing, which would have been easier to see if you had included the author's name in the cite.

Ok, source review passed. Please copy these things on to the next list(s). Promoting! --PresN 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, PresN! This page was particularly weird and hard since so much predated me (and almost all of it had to be replaced). I will take these lessons to the next pages. --Neopeius (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Beach Motorsports Walk of Fame in downtown Long Beach, Southern California features many famous names in the world of American auto racing who have made a significant contribution to racing in the city. I expanded this list three months ago and believe it meets the FL criteria. All comments welcome MWright96 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wretchskull

Nicely done! I have one inquiry though. Why not make the "By nationality" heading into a sub-heading? It is not really disconnected from the "Inductees" section. Wretchskull (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wretchskull: Done; many thanks for the support MWright96 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – only suggestions would be to change "Long Beach, Southern California" to just "Long Beach, California" and to archive sources where possible. Other than that, really great work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: Done both MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "to recognise those who have made" - this is an American topic, so per WP:TIES that should be "recognize"
• "talks with the Economic Development Bureau of the City of Long Beach and officials" - if only the Bureau and the officials were involved then it should be "talks between"
• "teaching the public on the auto racing role" => "teaching the public about the auto racing role"
• The three entries for "....Racing" should probably just sort under the actual first letter, as "Racing" isn't a surname
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have address all four of the queries raised above MWright96 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• No issues, good job with consistency.

Reliability

• Seems fine, nothing stands out as unreliable after looking through

Verifiability

• Checked 12, 22, 30, 7, no issues
• Pass for source review

• 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) 21:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slumdog Millionaire is a 2008 British romantic drama film directed by Danny Boyle and written by Simon Beaufoy. It stars Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal, Anil Kapoor, and Irrfan Khan. Based Vikas Swarup's 2005 novel Q & A, the film focuses on an 18-year old game show contestant named Jamal Malik (Patel). After being accused of cheating on Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, he recounts to the police how events in his life story enabled him to answer every question correctly. The film won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2009 ceremony. This is my fourth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short (film), and 1917 which were promoted in October 2015, January 2021, and November 2020, respectively. will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Endorse all of the above plus.....
• It is a British film, so based on my interpretation of WP:TIES the article should use British English. Therefore "Fox Searchlight gave the film a limited release in ten theaters" should be "Fox Searchlight gave the film a limited release in ten cinemas" (we don't call a place where movies are shown a theatre in UK English)

• Done: Changed theaters into cinemas.

• Entries in the recipient column which start with a " should sort as if the " isn't there i.e. Jai Ho should sort under J

• Done: Added sort template so that nominees that have quotations are sorted by the actually name.

• Suttirat Anne Larlarb does not sort correctly

• Done: Fixed sorting by adding sorting template using the surname Larlarb.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed all the comments and made the necessary corrections.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (WP:DTAB)

• Tables need a caption: add |+ your table caption to the top, or if the caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it |+ {{sronly|your table caption}} instead so that it only shows up for screen reader software. --PresN 22:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Added table caption accordingly.

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Throughout the linking of publishers/works is inconsistent
  • For example, you link European Film Academy and Hollywood Foreign Press Association but not Recording Academy or Variety?

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

• A bit confused about ref 2, what's all this "Reuters. uk.reuters.com. Thomson Reuters"

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

• Amazon.com seems a bit uncalled for in ref 7

• Done: I removed publishers since they are unnecessary.

• I'm assuming there's no web link for "Oscar Surprises Few, Far Between"?

• I accessed the article via Newspapers.com

• refs 16 and 17 are missing authors
• ref 31 seems to not have the full first name of the author
• why "Variety. Reed Business Information" for ref 52 but not the other variety refs?

• Done: Linked publishers and works by their first mention accordingly.

Reliability

• There are some questionable sources, but they seem to be the websites of their respective awards, so no worries there.

Verifiability

• ref 3 link is broken

• Fixed: Replaced Reuters link with Variety one.

• ref 39 link is not working
• ref 52 not working
• ref 56 broken
• I'm guessing there are other refs broken—maybe archive them all? Aza24 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: My internet is broken down at the house I stay most often is down and is currently ongoing repairs. I am still working to address your comments slowly. Also, it is my birthday this weekend, and may be sidelined a bit, but I intend to get this up to FL standards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No rush at all, from your history of first-class FLs, I have no doubt that you'll get around to this when you can. Take all the time you need. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24:: Could you do a re-review of the sources since I added new sources resulting in changes?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I don't think your original ping worked. Have just looked now, looks great. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really minor, but there is a subtle change in meaning when you use "an" instead of "the" in Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? "an" suggests it is one of many, but Kaun Banega Crorepati is the official version.
• I wouldn't link Slumdog Millionaire again in the fourth paragraph of the lede.

That's all I got. Solid work as usual. ~ HAL333 16:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HAL333: I made both corrections based on your comments. Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth or fifth FL nomination. Have worked quite hard and spent hours to improve the list like references, table, lead etc. List has all required thing to be FL. All constructive comments are more than welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: You currently have an open FLC with no supports yet. Per the instructions, "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I would withdraw this FLC until that nomination is close to being complete. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @25 Cents FC:, given the comment above, you may want to consider formally withdrawing this nomination for the time being. Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the other nomination was archived, so this one is now fine as far as that goes. --PresN 03:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing table sorting. Has the class been updated to include "sortable"? RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it and it hadn't changed, but I was able to fix it myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nom. Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "During Jawaharlal Nehru's premiership, he rarely held the Presidency of INC" - this is the first time the initials have been used and while it is pretty obvious what they stand for they should be explained. So put (INC) after the party name at the end of the very first sentence

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "after she formed Congress (I) in 1978" - there's no explanation of what "Congress (I)" is - is it a separate party? If so, how does it relate to this one? Or was it a renaming of this one? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Seperate party formed in / during 1978. It was renamed as Indian National Congress by election commission of India. Added a note depicting the same.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments

• "Despite being a party with a structure, Congress under Indira Gandhi did not hold any organizational elections after 1972" - so how was Barua elected in 1975.....?

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "did not hold any organizational elections after 1972..... Indira Gandhi, however, institutionalised" - inconsistent use of American English (with the Z) and British English (with the S) - be consistent

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Congress (I)—the "I" signifying Indira, the national election commission declared Congress (I) to be the real Indian National Congress for the 1984 general election" - this is not grammatically correct and (based on reading the main article) it doesn't seem to tell the whole story. I think it should say "In 1978, Indira Gandhi split from the INC and formed a new opposition party, popularly called Congress (I), which the national election commission to be the real Indian National Congress for the 1984 general election." This also needs a source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Version reviewed [8]

Formatting

• All caps ref should be avoided (ref 1 & 34)—recommend using title case (you can find an all caps to title case converter online to do this quickly)

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• retrieval dates missing from ref 11

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would avoid having "New Delhi" in ref 7 as you don't include locations for any other refs

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 8 isn't cited correctly (I have no idea what "Britannica Portal" is), I would recommend using {{cite encyclopedia}} or using Encyclopædia Britannica for the publisher and 23 September 2020 for the date

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 13 isn't cited correctly either. The All India Congress Committee should be the publisher and the archive link should be under "|archive-url=" with "|url-status=dead" and the original url under "url="

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• why no publisher for ref 19?

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• be consistent with including the work and publisher or just the work (e.g. The Indian Express. Indian Express Group vs just The Indian Express)

take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• Seems fine

Verifiability

• ref 6 seems to have an incomplete page range

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• rfe 12 Somervill has an incomplete page range

 Done. Reference 12 replaced with reference 11.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• recommend adding oclc (462824439 – from here) in place of absent ISBN for ref 18 Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems good now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• These are all non-source related
• I would recommend linking each president's name every time in the table (the linking rules don't apply to table anyways). Here's my rationale: lets say someone wants to find the president of a specific year, say 1959. It will be awkward for them to have to scroll up five entries to where U. N. Dhebar's name is linked
  • Along these lines, I would recommend this for the Place of conference column, but that seems less pertinent if you disagree

@Aza24: Are you sure that it is necessary? I think two reviewers have different opinions and we already spent a lot of time unlinking it.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessary at all—hence the double use of "recommendation" in my comments

• Henry John Stedman Cotton is a disambiguation link at the moment

 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• recommend using {{Annotated link}} in the See also section, so the readers understand why they're linked there

 Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Upon linking it says Wikimedia List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress and Wikipedia List of presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party. I am not able to comprehend why exatcly we need to use {{Annotated link}} here. Have referred few list, nowhere it's mentioned.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 09:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not "required", hence why I said "recommend"

• Are you sure the numbering are actually used for the holders? I don't see it anywhere on their respective pages. For example, although there could be numbers in the List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, there is not, as the holders are not generally reffered to by their numbering. The same seems true here, suggesting there inclusions is OR.

@Aza24: The numbering is not used for holders. Featured List like this has used the same numbering method even though holders are not generally referred to by their numbering.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend embedding the sections into the actual table (like at List of compositions by Claude Debussy) so its entirety is sortable. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is more suitable and easier to navigate. It’s also differentiate various eras. Anyway, Pinging @RunningTiger123 for his input.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For both of these last two points, the numbering just doesn't make sense how it is. Why does it restart for each division—are they really separate enough to warrant this? It all seems arbitrary, is Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya really referred to as the 1st president of the post-independence era Indian national conference, why not the 62nd overall and why a number at all? I look at the navigation box {{Indian National Congress}} and see that they're presented as single list. I don't know what the solution is here, there are certainly numerous ways to create more uniformity here, but hopefully you both see where my confusion stems from. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the template {{Indian National Congress}}, back in time I have had made the table as per total number of presidents. However, was advised to put it in yearwise. Considering age of the Congress party; I feel it's essential to put the list in era-wise, readers would eventually understand and be able to differentiate between the presidents in "founding, pre and post"– independance years. How about adding 1st, 2nd and likewise instead of numbers, let us know.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 11:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was unclear I think. I like the division of found, pre, post etc. — I think its helpful and sensible for the readers. My confusion is this: the numbers seem arbitrary, but I can understand your want to include them. However, reseting the numbers for each "pre" "post" section is even more arbitrary imo. Aza24 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes more sense. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]