Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2023

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, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan has six World Heritage Sites and 26 sites on the tentative list. The style is standard. The current nomination about the WHS in the US is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 15:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "accepted the convention" ratified instead?
  • Ratified reads fine, indeed. I was using both formulations in the previous articles.
• Our article on the IVC seems to capitalize "Civilisation".
• "steep hill it remained" → "steep hill, it remained "
• Link Isa Khan.
  • The article leads to another person, the tomb belongs to Isa Khan Hussain who does not have an article.
• "during its history, the extant monuments" missing a conjunction.
• Link gunpowder era.
• "The mosque" → "This mosque", also for next entry.
• "built in" → "built from"?
  • I think this is fine.
• That's all I can find. If you have the time, I would appreciate a review of my FLC nom. AryKun (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @AryKun: Fixed, thanks! Will have a look at the birds article now. --Tone 13:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. AryKun (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "with about one third of the city being explored so far" => "with about one third of the city having been explored so far"
• "Taxila, which was inhabited already in the Neolithic" => "Taxila, which was already inhabited in the Neolithic"
• "The site was already abandoned in the mid-3rd millennium BCE, before the urbanised phase of the Indus Valley civilisation" - "civilisation" had a capital C earlier.......?
• "It was a centre of a thriving Jain community who was active" => "It was a centre of a thriving Jain community which was active"
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You spell "Shalimar" in two different ways in the description of the Fort and Shalimar Gardens in Lahore
• For the Archaeological Site of Ranigat, I think it should say "stupas, shrines, and secular buildings" in the description
• For the description of the Mansehra Rock Edicts, I would write "of the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka"
• For the Hingol Cultural Landscape, you start the description with "Hinglaj Mata mandir", when the source seems to say "Hinglaj Mata Mandar"?
• For the Karez System Cultural Landscape, I would start the description with "A karez, kariz, or qanat"
• In the description of the Deosai National Park I think it would look better to do the unit conversion as: 3,500 to 5,200 m (11,500 to 17,100 ft)

Otherwise everything looks good! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you for checking! For the Mandar/mandir, here I used the name the WP article uses to avoid confusion. I think this is easier for the reader, especially because it is not the title of the site, in which case I would probably have added an explanation to the description. Tone 08:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy to support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 11:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Formatting and reliability of the sourcing look okay and no dead links were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was growing up, the studio audience used to cheer when Carnac the Magnificent (Johnny Carson) came to the last joke, and Carnac would curse them ... so keep that in mind if you're planning on cheering, but this list finishes up the flowering plant families. These are the malvids, including the cabbages (and everything that smells like cabbage), citrus fruit ... and the maple trees, eh? As always, a list of the image licenses is on the talk page, if that helps. Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This might nitpick-y, but I think it could benefit linking perrenials in the lead, since it is also linked in the glossary.
• Recommend linking to the author's article in the references too (as you did with previous nominations)
• The rest of the list appears to be in good order. Nothing more to quibble really. Excellent work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If you have spare time and interest, would also appreciate your comments/input on my current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The cabbage family includes broccoli, cauliflower, turnips and radishes." - any reason why cauliflower is singular but the latter two plural? Broccoli is probably OK as there isn't really a plural of that, but "cauliflowers" would be valid......
• "The ornamental geraniums come from five species of Pelargonium, along with their many hybrids and cultivars"=> "The ornamental geraniums, along with their many hybrids and cultivars, come from five species of Pelargonium"
• That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and thanks. I removed cauliflower, since it looks so similar to broccoli. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - true story, when my son was little he was offered cauliflower to eat and claimed it was disgusting even though he had never tried it before. So we told him it was "white broccoli" (he loved broccoli) and he then ate it quite happily :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no issues that need to be addressed. Good job. -- EN-Jungwon 08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx much, Jungwon. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "trees, shrubs, vines and herbaceous perennials and annuals" -- could that first Hemingwayesque 'and' be replaced with a comma?
  • I simplified to "herbaceous plants". - Dank (push to talk)
• "allergic reaction for some people" -- 'in some people' seems more appropriate, but that may just be subjective and feel free to ignore.
  • How about "can sometimes trigger allergic reactions"?
• "warm-climate zones" -- should that be hyphenated?
  • Does "in warm climates" work?
• I'm assuming that there was no image for Biebersteiniaceae? etc.
  • I'd prefer no image to a bad image. The stock of available plant images is increasing rapidly, and I plan to come back in about a year and see how many of these blank spots can be filled in.

That's alls I got. I didn't realize Eucalyptus could be 300+ ft! ~ HAL333 02:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Great suggestions, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to ping: @HAL333 - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me. Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. Congratulations on finishing the whole set! --PresN 00:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Kelly Smith is an English footballer with 20 years with the national team. She was the top-scorer for England before Ellen white took her place. It was a simple list but some match reports for older female games were harder to come by. Its a clean and straightforward list, includes archived refs and has a simple lead. Thank you all in advance for your reviews. Cheers. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "in a 13−0 away thrashing" - "thrashing" is not encyclopedic language
• "it was the team's highest winning margin before England defeated Latvia 20−0 on 30 November 2021" - this should either be a standalone sentence or the comma should be a semi-colon, also replace "before" with "until"
• "At the 2009 Women's Euro final," => "In the 2009 Women's Euro final,"
• "the 2−6 loss to Germany" => "the 6−2 loss to Germany"
• "Smith enjoyed a short career with Great Britain" - she didn't really have a "career" with Great Britain, a team that only plays very occasionally
• "The team qualified for the 2012 Olympics as hosts, she featured" - again, comma should be a semi-colon
• "games against Brazil, Cameroon and New Zealand, including a pre-tournament match against Sweden2" - you can't have a list of games and then say "including [one that wasn't on the list]"
• "a match which Smith did not feature" => "a match in which Smith did not feature"
• "Scores and results list her team's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each White goal" - copy+paste error there?
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All addressed, thanks again legend. Every time I read your comments about my inability to write, I try and figure out why I am the most braindead human on Earth. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't be silly, the above are all very trivial points and overall the prose was very good. There's always going to be little grammar niggles that you don't spot when you look at your own writing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Phikia (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. !! Date !! Venue [...] becomes !scope=col | Date, with each header on its own line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for all tables, cheers. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article for Smith says that she won 117 caps for England, so maybe double check that?
• I don't know if you need to link London in the lede (you don't link it in the table)
• The sentence starting "Smith managed 116 caps" needs a semicolon after "England", not a comma
• "exclaiming praise" seems quite strong – maybe "praising her"?
• Maybe add who her last goal was against (Scotland)?
• I think you should briefly explain that the Great Britain team was only created for the 2012 Olympics
• Maybe add to the last paragraph of the lede that she did not score for Great Britain?
• If you like you could add an interlangauge link to Sepp-Doll Stadion [de] in the table; up to you though
• The caption starting "Smith scored five goals against The Netherlands" also needs a semicolon, not a comma

Otherwise everything looks good to me. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 17:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @N Oneemuss: I think I've addressed everything, please let me know if its okay. On the first point, The Women's Football Archive incorrectly lists her England caps as 116, missing the Denmark game from August 2001, I've made a note in the article clarifying the error, I've also left a message with the website as it is clearly incorrect. Other than that, the reference is pretty solid, coverage on the Women's game is rather poor and this ref is gold. Thank You again, please let me know if I can make anything better. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to new millennium! Wait, what do you mean it's been the 21st century for the past 23 years?!? Anyways, in the middle of 2000 is when I moved from New Jersey to Florida where I (unfortunately) still live. Pretty great song selection this year! Looking to addressing any comments. Erick (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Lead image caption needs a full stop
• "In 2000, seven songs topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine." - I count eight in the table.....?
• "Singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one at the start of the year where" - I would say that "At the start of the year singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one, where" reads more smoothly
• ""Cuando", which spent seven weeks at number one between September and November and was the only artist" - need a comma before "and was", otherwise you are saying that "Cuando" was the only artist etc.
• "It spent a total of 19 nonconsecutive weeks at this position, a record at the time for the most weeks at number one on the chart, previously held by Cristian Castro's song "Vuélveme a Querer" in 1995" => "It spent a total of 19 non-consecutive weeks at number one on the airplay chart, breaking the record for the most weeks at number one set by Cristian Castro's song "Vuélveme a Querer" in 1995"
• "Thalía achieved her first chart-topper with "Entre el Mar y una Estrella" - closing quote mark missing on the song title
• "which spent eights weeks at this position" => "which spent eight weeks at this position"
• "Ricardo Arjona spent a total of 19 weeks at number with two songs." => "Ricardo Arjona spent a total of 19 weeks at number one with two songs."
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new at FLC so forgive me if anything I say here seems dumb.
• Sourcing: this is entirely sourced to the website of Billboard. That verifies the list but I was really hoping for something confirming its notability - another source, other than Billboard, that treats this chart and who tops it as notable, preferably something from a reliable source characterising what topping this chart actually means for the people who do it (e.g., "XXXX says topping this chart means you're ...") but at least discussing it in detail somehow. Otherwise, at the very least we are lacking a bit of reliably-sourced context about why this is important. I understand notability isn't an issue normally dealt with when reviewing for FL but if the only cites are to a single source then it's a potential issue.

Take a look at List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2000 by ChrisTheDude (or any of his FLs, which are the main inspiration for these lists I'm making), a FL about a music chart in the same year. That's how the lists about number-ones of the year are supposed to look like.

• I'll AGF on each individual reference as there's too many to check individually (as an aside, is there no single reliable source listing these?). However I note these are references to the present website of Billboard, and may not exactly represent what Billboard said back in 2000.

Please elaborate on the last part. The charts are exactly the same as the printed version.

Hi Erick, the originals don't say "Latin Pop Airplay" anywhere. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is a subchart of Hot Latin Songs" - was it called Hot Latin Songs in the year 2000? Looking in old copies of Billboard on the internet archive, it looks like this could have been called "Hot Latin Tracks" in 2000, and possibly "Latin Pop Airplay" was called something else then (in fact I'm not sure they had any special name for it then - the 1994 source in the article doesn't use any special name).

TBF, I think that would just confuse readers if we use its former name.

I think for accuracy we've got to at least mention the name they were called at the time somewhere, and explain that the sub-chart wasn't called "Latin Pop Airplay" in 2000 somehow. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2000, seven songs topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine - I also count differently on this. The magazine having 52 issues is unsurprising for a weekly magazine.
• Addressed this.
• Did Son by Four really only spend 19 weeks at no. 1? Billboard said 20 weeks in their 16 December 2000 edition.

Yes, the link you posted is for the main Hot Latin Songs chart, where it spent 20 weeks at number one there, not the Latin Pop Airplay chart.

OK. That makes sense. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was also named the best-performing Latin pop song of the year" needs a full-stop.

Addressed this.

• The pictures are OK but ideally the top-most picture should be one with more visual impact than the one presently used for Son by Four, and (depending on the resolution available) could be larger than the others to give this page some "pop" to draw people into the article. I get that Son by Four were the group that was most important musically in this chart in 2000, but the photo for them doesn't say that. Any of the other photos presently used would be better as a top-most photo IMHO.

This is the only image of Son by Four that I could find in the Internet that was released under CC. In fact, that image exists because I convinced a photographer to release under such license.

Couldn't you use one of the other photos top-most? FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In as much as it is possible to check the photo licencing here, this appears OK.
• Going down the criteria I get:

1. Prose - good.

2. Lead - OK. Main concern is we don't quite tell people why topping this chart is important.

3a. Comprehensiveness -good.

3b. Inline citations - good for confirming these songs were top on this chart at the dates specified, slight concerns over other facts already discussed above. Using multiple sources is a good idea to avoid this kind of issue.

3c. List criteria - I have a concern over WP:LISTN if the only citations are to Billboard. This is particularly so when this is a relatively minor sub-chart. No length issue. I have concerns on the fork issue since we do have List of number-one Billboard Hot Latin Tracks of 2000 and this chart was just a sub-chart of it in 2000, and that article isn't very long. EDIT: thinking about this, there were two other charts that would have to be combined so probably not a fork.

4. Structure - good.

5a. Text/formatting style - good.

5b. Visual appeal - OK.

6. Stability - stable.

And that's me out. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: See my replies above. Thank you for your review. Erick (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! FOARP (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I did a quick dig and and found it was in fact called Hot Latin Pop Tracks back then (https://www.proquest.com/docview/227124504/6EE0DD956ECD4681PQ/9?accountid=196403 ] . So yes, you were right about that. I did some amends on the list and changed the top image to Ricardo Arjona. Erick (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: - I'd add that reference to the article somewhere. The Arjona photo is more visually appealing. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP Done! Erick (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a pass of the FL criteria. My WP:LISTN concerns are still there if there's only one source, particularly as notability standards have only gotten tighter in recent years. FOARP (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "then-known as" → "formerly designated as"
• "At the start of the year singer-songwriter Ricardo Arjona's song "Desnuda" was at number one, where at the start of the year where it spent 12 consecutive weeks on this position until it was knocked off by "Dónde Está el Amor", performed by Charlie Zaa, in the issue dated March 25." → "At the commencement of the year, Ricardo Arjona's "Desnuda" occupied the pinnacle position, sustaining the summit for 12 consecutive weeks until it was dethroned by Charlie Zaa's "Dónde Está el Amor", in the issue dated March 25."
• "The ballad version of the track was released to Latin pop stations and gained popularity after it was featured in the Mexican soap opera La vida en el espejo (1999)." → "Latin pop stations received the ballad rendition of the track, propelling its ascent to popularity subsequent to its inclusion in the Mexican soap opera La vida en el espejo (1999)."
• That's all I have. – jona ✉ 21:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I now support this list's nomination. Good job once again Erick – jona ✉ 22:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:, @FOARP: , @AJona1992: I think all the issues you all brought up. Erick (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I realise that it was suggested by the editor above, but I think some of the language in the article is now really excessively flowery. Why say "At the commencement of the year" when "at the start" is perfectly fine and indeed much more natural English? Nobody would ever refer to "the commencement of the year" in conversation. It just seems like using fancy words for the sake of it. "Sustaining the summit" also seems a bit OTT... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the reply, I reverted some of my edits per your concerns. I hate to ask of this of you, but you could do another review of the list? Erick (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a few changes and now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of number ones on Billboard's black music chart reach the end of the 1960s, and we start to see the music moving out of the classic Motown era and into funkier and more psychedelic directions. Feedback as ever gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we can wikilink black music, for better context into the genre.
• In James Brown's image caption, perhaps replace the enclosures with commas for the two singles.
• Since the lead sentence of the 3rd para previews acts that have topped for the first time, perhaps the mention of with his first number one is repetitive as it directly follows that and within the same sentence.
• I think you may have missed 'sronly' for the non-visual screen reader.
• That's it from me. Great work overall for 1969 coverage. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all done. Can't believe I am still forgetting that screen reader thing..... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Believe me, I forget the basics too, even when I raise them on reviews I do, I seem to miss applying them on my work :). Btw, if you have time or interest would also appreciate your input/comments a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new to FLC so forgive any unusual questions.
• Photos are good, especially the one of James Brown. In as much as I can check the copyright, appears OK.
• I AGF on the sourcing because too many to check individually.
• Are/were there any other charts covering similar territory or was Billboard's the only one?
  • @FOARP: - I believe Record World and Cashbox published similar charts, but I can't really see how/where that could easily be incorporated into this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • • "See also?" Up to you and not a requirement. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible to say more clearly what "best charting" means in this context? Charted the longest? Sold the most?
  • @FOARP: - according to our own article on the topic, Prior to incorporating chart data from Nielsen SoundScan (from 1991), year-end charts were calculated by an inverse-point system based solely on a title's performance (for example a single appearing on the Billboard Hot 100 would be given one point for a week spent at position 100, two points for a week spent at position ninety-nine, and so forth, up to 100 points for each week spent at number one). I think that's too verbose to incorporate into this article. I did change the descriptor to "number one on Billboard's year-end chart", don't know if that helps at all.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I think that's clearer, and probably there's another list of year-end chart-toppers you might link to there if you want. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Gaye's cumulative total of ten weeks in the top spot was the most achieved by any artist" - I assume this means in 1969/that year? FOARP (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FOARP: - many thanks for your review and welcome to FLC!! :-) A couple of responses above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • • @ChrisTheDude: - No problem. Happy to Support at this point. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @FOARP: - awesome, many thanks! And I hope you stick around FLC :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing jumps out at me. 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dank! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The US has 24 World Heritage Sites and 19 sites on the tentative list. This time I am nominating a bit longer list, so input will be very welcome to check for typos and grammar. The style is standard for the WHS lists. Tone 08:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see this one submitted here, as I've visited several of these sites myself.

• "while two sites (the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Montana) and Kluane / Wrangell – St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek (Alaska))" – consider rewriting without nested parentheses
• "4000 archaeological sites" → "4,000 archaeological sites" (match comma usage from elsewhere in the article)
• "more than a half" → "more than half"
• "reaches the depths" → "reaches depths"
• "The original wooden steeple used to house the Liberty Bell." – sentence fragment
• "sea lions, bald eagle, and California brown pelican" – don't mix plural and singular forms
• "The park is one of the world's largest remaining remnants of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary Geoflora era, it is a refuge of the flora and fauna that survived the Quaternary glaciations." – comma splice
• "centre" → "center" (occurs three times in prose; use American English)
• "storey" → "story" (American English)
• "The mountains are meeting" → "The mountains meet"
• "world's largest marine protected area" → "the world's largest marine protected area"
• "another 2000 years" → "another 2,000 years" (consistent commas)
• "one of symbols" → "one of the symbols"
• "California Current flows" → "The California Current flows"
• "the Pacific Plate, is subducted" → "the Pacific Plate is subducted"
• "the Rio Grande river" → "the Rio Grande" ("Rio" and "river" are redundant)
• "from the second half of 18th century, are planned cities" → "from the second half of the 18th century are planned cities" (note added word and removed comma)
• Consider using Template:Efn for notes – they allow the footnote to pop up when the symbol is hovered over, which I think is more convenient for readers.
• Alt text and sorting look good.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you for checking! Not sure about the sentence fragment, "The original wooden steeple used to house the Liberty Bell." -> Before they put it to display, the bell was in the steeple. Tone 14:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That one's on me; I misread the sentence and how "used" was used. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also excited to see this one, been to 15 between the listed and nominated sites!

• World Heritage Convention can be wikilinked (and shouldn't this be done for all these lists?)
• Please be consistent with cultural heritage and natural heritage sentence structure.
• "As of 2023," is unnecessary, this is unlikely to become outdated
  • I like it because every now and then (a couple of years) these lists get updated, especially for larger countries such as the US.
    • Right but when a new site is named, we can be reasonably certain that this article will be updated right away. The point of "as of" is to tell the reader, "this might not be presently accurate when you read it", but while hypothetically anything can change, we don't need a disclaimer that adds no value except in the unlikely event another site is designated yet no one is updating Wikipedia any more.
• "Second Session" should be lowercase
• "twenty different states" remove "different", it can't be 20 of the same states!
• Rm comma after Pennsylvania
• no "the" before Everglades NP
• "and also functions as a model to understand the ecosystem processes" too close to source
• "and" before mountain goat
• "The canyon is..." sentence should have parallel clauses
  • It read fine to me, but please check now.
    • The sentence has two verbs and therefore two clauses, but the first verb is only introducing a list with two items so they need an "and" between them. Or the second verb "reaches" can be removed so it's a proper three item list with all three items in the same format.
• "Precambrian and Paleozoic portions particularly well exposed and containing rich fossil assemblages" also quite close to source
  • I think this is ok, if I change it too much, it will be clumsy. I am open to suggestions.
• "The area is home to several mammal, bird, and reptile species," overly wordy, rephrase for conciseness or more meaning
• The "in Danger" explanations are a bit wordy, that's half the description
  • But this is important, especially because Everglades have been listed more than once.
• Olympic: "as well as" should be "and"
• I don't think the paraphrased "that the evolution is taking its separate course" has quite the same meaning as the original, reword the sentence or use a different fact
  • Removed, it pretty much doubles the fact that isolation results in different subspecies and later species.
• " largest pre-Columbian archaeological site north of Mexico" doesn't mean the same thing as the orginal "the largest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico", not sure if this paraphrase is still accurate.
  • This fact is listed later, criterion (iii). Both are correct.
• "one of the largest remaining remnants of the diverse Arcto-Tertiary geoflora era" another copy-paste
• "the continuous biological evolution of the natural system" again, just changed "this" in the source to "the", not great
  • Removed.
• Statue of liberty has "state" typo
• "has welcomed millions of immigrants" in the source is more appropriate tense than "was welcoming millions of migrants", please rewrite
  • Already fixed by another editor.
• "glaciers have created" -> "glaciers created"
• "The altitudes range from 2,000 ft (600 m) to 13,000 ft (4,000 m), resulting in a wide variety of habitats that include diverse flora and fauna" kind of vague, rewrite or remove altogether and put in something more descriptive, it's Yosemite!
  • Removed. I guess I am going too long with some descriptions.
• "in" -> "on the island"
• "freedom, nobility, self-determination, and prosperity" copy-pasted
  • It is, but I cannot really use synonyms for those... Open to suggestions. The sentence overall is different, though.
    • I'd remove altogether if you can't write it in Wikipedia's voice, I don't think about self-determination when seeing neo-classical architecture
• Carlsbad: speleothems links to Speleogenesis instead of speleothem
• "from the Permian" -> during
• "of this site" seems unnecessary
• "blurring of the boundaries between exterior and interior" copy-paste
  • What about now?
• wikilink petrified trees
• "allows the paleontologists study" "allow paleontologists to study"
• "first elevators," "first" unneeded
• "aesthetics" singular

Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Reywas92: I'm through, sorry it took me a while! Thanks for checking, great comments! --Tone 20:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Reywas92, did you manage to check this one? :) Tone 21:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Sorry for the delays, some responses. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Fixed, the remaining, thanks! Tone 08:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Support Great work. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Less review than we usually go for, but as part of a successful series I'm comfortable with the level of attention this one has gotten. Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Music Bank winners list. This is the 6th FLC nomination from the Music Bank series. -- EN-Jungwon 07:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Laboum member Ahn Sol-bin" - link the group

  Done.

• "For the next four weeks after his departure, VIXX member N, Highlight member Son Dong-woon, Shinee member Taemin and BTS member Kim Seok-jin appeared as guest hosts alongside Solbin. On June 15, Lovelyz member Kei and actor Choi Won-myeong became the new hosts of the show." - sources for all of this?

  Done. I would like some help with the first sentence here. The current sentence makes it sound like the five people hosted the show for 4 weeks when that not the case. Each of them appeared alongside Solbin for 1 week (N hosted the show with Solbin on May 18, Son Dong-woon on May 25, Taemin on June 1 and Kim Seok-jin on June 8.) How can I mention this in the article. I couldn't think of any clean way to do it. -- EN-Jungwon 17:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "For the next four weeks after his departure, VIXX member N, Highlight member Son Dong-woon, Shinee member Taemin and BTS member Kim Seok-jin each appeared on one show as a guest host alongside Solbin"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Three acts had three number one singles on the chart in 2018;" - semi-colon should be a colon

  Done.

• "Wanna One with "Boomerang", "Light" and "Spring Breeze"" => "and Wanna One with "Boomerang", "Light" and "Spring Breeze""

  Done.

• "Soloist Sunmi achieved her first number one on the chart with "Siren" on the September 21 broadcast. Infinite member Kim Sung-kyu won for the first time on Music Bank with "True Love" after it debut at number one on the March 9 broadcast." - sources?

  Done.

• Sources for the entire last paragraph of the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude, all done. I have rewritten the last paragraph a little bit. -- EN-Jungwon 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of that last para is about acts having their first number one, but in the middle there's a bit about IKon that doesn't mention this. Was "Love Scenario" their first number one? If so, mention that. Also, I notice that their name is written with a capital I in the prose but a lower-case i in the table......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ChrisTheDude, "Love Scenario" is their first number one on Music Bank but I couldn't find any reliable source mentioning that. Should I move it to the second paragraph? -- EN-Jungwon 07:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, it reads oddly having it in the middle of a section about "first number ones". It would fit in the second para, maybe after the bit about acts with three number ones.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. I have also moved two sentences that mentions "first number one" from the second para to the third. -- EN-Jungwon 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Laboum member Ahn Sol-bin, who had been hosting the show since July 2016, continued to do so until June 8, 2018": I'm not sure what's going on here ... maybe this was first written in June 2018, and if so, then it sounded perfectly sensible back then. But IMO, 5 years later, the usual way to say this would be "Laboum member Ahn Sol-bin hosted the show from July 2016 until June 8, 2018." (For the next sentence, there's an argument that you need the extra words because of the clause that follows ... I don't have an opinion on that.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "after it debut at number one": debuted?
• File:160919 INFINITE ONLY 쇼케이스 성규 2.jpg has a box that says "has not yet been reviewed".
• Most (or all) images need alt text of some kind.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing big jumps out at me. 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 actual problems (but this isn't a source review). None of the sources jump out at me as unreliable, but I can't read Korean. 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 (except as above).
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• You might be interested in reviewing (when this link turns blue) WP:Featured list candidates/List of malvid families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dank all done. I have added alt text to all the images and replaced the image with one of the artist in 2018. I would note the image was uploaded by an enwiki and commons admin so could we AGF and keep that image? Also, the source page for the image says that it is available under CC BY 4.0. Almost all the portrait images of the artist I found are unreviewed but they have acceptable licenses. The new image is also unreviewed at the moment. Should I ask an image reviewer on Commons to review it? -- EN-Jungwon 13:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It wouldn't hurt. It doesn't change my support. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the new image and the source photo appears to have an appropriate free license, at least at the time it was reviewed on Commons. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Toy Story 3 regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The sources seem reliable enough from what I can tell (not knowing the Korean language), and the formatting looks okay. The link-checker tool shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest nomination in this series and we carry on through the late 1960s. In this particular year, different versions of the same song were at number one at the start and end of the year, but the one that was number one at the start of the year was recorded after the one that was number one at the end of the year. Confused? Read on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aretha Franklin should sort under F for the Chain of Fools entry.
• I think you may have missed 'sronly' for the non-visual screen reader.
• That's it from me. Great work, and a very interesting year indeed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "which spent three weeks in the top spot" - I'd go for "three weeks at the top spot" but you're typically more grmmatically correct than me so maybe it should be "in"...
• "Redding had died in a plane crash in December of the previous year just days after recording the track,[5] and as well as topping the R&B listing the song became the first posthumous number one on the all-genre Hot 100 chart." - There seems to be something slightly off about this sentence. How about "Redding had died in a plane crash in December of the previous year just days after recording the track, which topped the R&B listing as well and became the first posthumous number one on the all-genre Hot 100 chart."?

That's all, and I really had to scratch my head to even come up with two things to nitpick about. If you can, I'd appreciate any comments at my current FAC :) --NØ 07:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MaranoFan: - point 2 done, point 1 not done as "in the top spot" is the usual way of expressing it eg the first sentence of this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--NØ 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "The Dells have been inducted": "have been" strikes me as odd, since (according to our article on the group) they were inducted in 2004.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing else caught my attention. 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Ref 11 needs a publisher (AllMusic). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - whoops! Now added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family was one of the most acclaimed shows on television during its run (and for good reason, at least in my opinion). It's been a little while since I've worked on an FLC for a TV show awards list, but this one is modeled off those lists, especially the lists for The Office and Friends. This is the longest list I've done, but I'm happy with how it turned out. Quick shoutout to Chompy Ace for adding in a few citations along the way. As always, any and all feedback is appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent work for a FL-esque list. Thank you RunningTiger123 for my citation work. Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 00:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (see below). Usually, I can come up with something; this time I got nothing. Well done. I haven't checked quite as much as usual because I'm a little under the weather, but everything I'm looking at is solid. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Feeling better, I'll run through my usual process.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Is it really true that characters (at List of awards and nominations received by Modern Family#Emmy awards and nominations for the cast) should be sorted by their first name? (Since the characters don't have Wikipedia pages of their own, I can't check the DEFAULTSORT magic word. To give a counterexample, Bart Simpson's DEFAULTSORT has him sorted under "S".)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose; nothing jumps out at me. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. I'd appreciate a review over at List of malvid families, if you have time. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding sorting, I went with first names since a few characters listed do not have canonical last names. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing that I could find worthy of correction in this list is to italicize all titles of television within reference/article titles including partial titles and abbreviations per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. Otherwise, this list gets a easy support from me.

--Birdienest81talk 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout. The link-checker tool had several sites that it listed as causing download errors, but the pages were in working order when I clicked through on them. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At number 27 in our series of animal FLCs, we now cap off the trilogy of Australian marsupials with a list for the whole order Diprotodontia. Recently closed were FLCs for two of the suborders in Diprotodontia, the list of macropodiformes (kangaroos) and list of phalangeriformes (cuscus, etc.), and this list capstones them as well as the too-short-for-a-species-list suborder Vombatiformes, containing the koala and wombats. It's been over a year since the last one of these, but these capstone lists go up a level from the species lists to be a list of genera instead, for orders that are too large to be a single list of species. This one follows the pattern of the last three genera lists (carnivorans, artiodactyls, and lagomorphs), and lists 39 genera representing 140 extant species; if you saw the last two FLCs, these animals should look pretty familiar. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SilverTiger

• "They are found in Australia, New Guinea, and Indonesia in forests, shrublands, grasslands, and savannas, though some species can also be found in deserts and rocky areas." - this sentence feels a little clunky. A comma after Indonesia might help, and are the species found in forests really also found in deserts? I'd suggest rephrasing that to "though some species are found in deserts and rocky areas".

• Done.

• "and includes cuscus and brushtail, ringtail, and gliding possums." Suggest rephrasing to "and includes cuscus and the brushtail, ringtail, and gliding possums." to better indicate that it is brushtail possums, ringtail possums, and gliding possums.

• Done.

• "two families: Phascolarctidae, or the koala, and Vombatidae, or the wombats." Suggest rephrasing to "two families: Phascolarctidae, the koala, and Vombatidae, the wombats."

• Done.

• "The organization of the order is not fixed, with many recent proposals made based on molecular phylogenetic analysis; additionally, the present trio of suborders by splitting the former suborder Phalangerida into Macropodiformes and Phalangeriformes based on research beginning in 1997, with further reorganizations proposed." - I'm not quite sure what this is saying (organization of the order? As in the internal organization of the suborders or families?) and the second half makes even less sense IMO.

• Whoops, that one got away from me. Fixed.

• "Dozens of extinct prehistoric Diprotodont species..." - perhaps put a comma after extinct?

• Done.

• Conventions section is good. Classification paragraph is good.

• But something seems off about the cladogram, like it is squishing into the text instead of being aligned to right? Could the cladogram be moved over to the right a little, and the max width of the text-list increased a bit?

• These cladograms are a continual headache, as the wider ones have problems on narrower screens with overlapping the text. I've switched up how I'm doing it so now it's not below the regular text but just hangs out like an image; does that look better?

• Right under the subheading "Hypsiprymnodontidae", the table says "not assigned to a named subfamily", but a subfamily is given on the genus article.

• Yeah, it's annoying, but the standard on Wikipedia as per WP:MAMMAL is to use the classification of species of Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005), and then any adjustments since that are supported by both the American Society of Mammologists and the IUCN. And... MSW3 and ASM both don't give any subfamilies for Hypsiprymnodon. So, even though the species/genus/family articles disagree, this list doesn't list a subfamily.

• On my first go-through I don't see any other obvious mistakes, but there is a sad dearth of range maps, especially for the macropodines and Lasiorhinus (which I consider especially sad because there is no suborder list to see species range maps at).

• Yeah, some orders have decent per-genus maps, but this one really doesn't. I don't make the maps, as I haven't sorted out how to take IUCN shapefiles and turn them into maps, so we're a bit empty here.

• Nice to see this list at FLC, those are incredibly informative and I hope to see still more after this one! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilverTiger12: Thanks, that's good to hear! Thanks for reviewing, replied inline. --PresN 23:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All my concerns have been addressed, the cladogram looks better, thank you. Full Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The diet of dendrolagus lists bark twice
• that's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: They really like bark! Fixed, thanks. --PresN 16:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very minor, but you used the singular and then the plural for "the koala, and Vombatidae, the wombats". If it flows better as is, disregard as well of course.

• It's on purpose, there's only one koala species, but two wombat species.

• That checks out.

• Should "southern Australia" be capitalized, as it is in its subarticle? The same goes for similar cases, eg "western Australia".

• I didn't, because I'm not identifying them as being in a specific, named region, but just in e.g. the "the southern part of Australia". For pretty much all species in these lists the area they are found in is too complex to accurately describe with words, so for the caption I just give a general area and not nail down specific named regions. For the Australian lists, since the continent is mostly contiguous with the country, you end up with some of these collisions, but it's the same thing I do with e.g. "western South America" in other lists rather than naming parts of countries.

That's all I could find. They're interesting little fellows. And the article is well polished. ~ HAL333 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks for reviewing; I responded inline, though I didn't make any changes. --PresN 13:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. To offer one nit-picky comment, you might want to consider alphabetizing the list of books, as that's a fairly common practice, but no major concerns here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, looks like a couple of books were accidentally sorted by the editor last name, not the author. --PresN 21:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The sampling of images that I checked out all had appropriate free licenses, a good caption (for the lead photo collage), and alt text. Everything looks good in this department. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame was promoted to featured list and appeared on the Main Page on January 18, 2021, I will do the same as this page. It is the another send-off to any franchise/series I wish to appear in the Main Page also. Chompy Ace 00:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• "It went on to win two awards, including Best Sound and Best Makeup." - you can't say "it won N awards, including...." and then list all N. "Including" by definition indicates that what follows isn't the entire list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Are you there? Chompy Ace 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am now (briefly).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes. What about now? Chompy Ace 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. Feel free to revert or discuss. 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would either exclude the AFI Award or add the comparable award from the National Board of Review recognizing the entire franchise (for consistency).
• "Best Art Direction for a Fantasy Film" should capitalize "Film"
• As best as I can tell, the Critics' Choice Awards for makeup and visual effects did not nominate specific individuals.
• "Room of Requirement" should not capitalize "of"
• "The Ultimate Scream" should sort by "Ultimate"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, done. Chompy Ace 08:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references are reliable and well-formatted across the board, and no dead links were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I can't find any new problems with the list. Great job.

--Birdienest81talk 11:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 18 June 2023 (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, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added a lot of content following the format of other Featured Lists (Such asUnited States presidential elections in Arkansas, etc.), I believe this list has FL standards compliant 金色黎明 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial observations

• Definitely need to mention to mention the states status as a swing state as from the 1990s to 2020, as Florida was far and away the most important swing state.
• The sentence on 2000 is good but I would mention the fact that it was a recount and that Gore won originally.
• Trump is listed as winning over 100% of the vote in 2020
  • Done 金色黎明 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Newtothisedit (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Finally, John C. Breckinridge won the state" - are we still talking about 1860?
• Don't start sentences with "but" (occurs in a couple of places)
• "Florida voted for the Republican nominee in all three presidential elections during reconstruction era" =>" Florida voted for the Republican nominee in all three presidential elections during the reconstruction era"
• And on that note, what the heck is the "reconstruction era"? Is there an appropriate link?
• "shortly after the Reconstruction era" - there was no capital R before....?
• "Thus, prior to the 1952 presidential election, the Republican Party had only won Florida in the 1928 presidential election" - the preceding sentences don't make it clear (to me at least) why this would have occurred? Are you saying that blacks and poor whites vote Republican so the changes mentioned in the previous sentences reduced their support? If so, make that clear.
• It seems like suddenly after 1952 the state swung dramatically to supporting the Republicans. What changed?
• "In the 2000 presidential election, Associated Press" => "In the 2000 presidential election, the Associated Press"
• "first called Florida for Al Gore" - and his party was......?
• "later in the evening, AP reversed their call and giving it to Bush" - "and" doesn't make grammatical sense here
• Also, who was Bush? This is the first mention of him so we need his full name and a link
• "in the Bush v. Gore" - "the Bush v. Gore"? What is this?
• "which made George W. Bush won" - ah, there's the full name and link. Move them to the first mention of him
• also, the above doesn't make grammatical sense
• "Trump's home state" - first mention, so what's his full name?
• Not actually sure how any of the sentence starting "Trump's home state" is relevant to this article without more context
• "furthermore, it has been seen as a bellwether" - pretty sure I have never seen that last word before in my life. What does it mean? Is there an appropriate link?
• That's what I got on the lead, there's quite a lot of work to be done. I'll look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your advice, I have altered the article according to you. 金色黎明 (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a bunch of little changes and now support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "And in the 1860 presidential election" - don't start a sentence with "and"
• "Due to the secession, Florida" - Easter egg link on Florida
• " participated the 1868 presidential election" => " participated in the 1868 presidential election"
• From our article, it looks like Reconstruction should have a capital R
• "called Florida for democratic nominee" - Democratic should have a capital D
• "Later in the evening, AP reversed their call and giving it" - doesn't make grammatical sense
• "republican nominee George W. Bush" - Republican should have a capital R
• "the Bush v. Gore on December 12" - still no explanation of what "the Bush v. Gore" was
• Need to link Donald Trump -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments, I have corrected them and delete some unnecessary things. I have also edited the last paragraph. 金色黎明 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rutherford B. Hayes should sort under H, not B
• "Lyndon B. Johnson should sort under J
• Alton B. Parker should sort under P
• Franklin D. Roosevelt should sort under R
• George H. W. Bush should sort under B
• ......and so on. Check the sorting on all the names -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have checked and corrected all of the sortname template. And I notice that John St. John should sort under St. John but not John. 金色黎明 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment– Not that I want to get too heavily involved in politics, but I think you have the wrong Democrat in 1972. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reminder, I've fixed this. 金色黎明 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the list. I have worked and raised quite a few lists of this series to FL status, and would be happy to leave some comments in a due course -– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The party's victory in that election was mainly due to its Democratic opponent Al Smith, who was a Catholic and opposed to Prohibition, which caused many members of the Southern Baptist Convention to switch to the Republican Party" — may require an inline attribution of the author.
• " the emergence of the Pinellas Republican Party began to shift Florida towards the Republican Party" — Is there a way to avoid this repetition of 'Republican Party'
• "In the 2000 presidential election, Bush led Gore by" — The reader has not yet been introduced to George W. Bush and Al Gore. Specify full names and link.
• "The Bush campaign team filed a lawsuit against Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the recounting of votes in certain counties violated the law. The case became known as Bush v. Gore." — This whole can be diluted as "In Bush v. Gore, the Bush campaign filed a lawsuit against Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the recounting of votes in certain counties violated the law (which law??)"
• " on December 12" — No need to be that specific. But if we are going to be specific with dates, better specify when was the lawsuit filed.
• "George W. Bush eventually" — Link and name him at his earlier instance
• Perhaps add a line that the margin of 537 votes was controversial; and we have never specified in the lead that election result was deadlocked due to Florida's recount.
• Can we combing footnotes [e] and [f]
• 'www.museumoffloridahistory.com' should really be 'Museum of Florida History'
• Same with 'edition.cnn.com', 'transition.fec.gov', and many more.
• Do we need to specify all that many authors in [13]
• Is 270toWin reliable?

A fine piece of work! Thanks a lot on continuing the series. Let me know if I can help on any of these lists in future! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, I have improved them. 金色黎明 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a long pause, I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "more than any other state" - source?

• Added the link to census which has a button to see the number of municipalities per state.

• "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose" - don't get this bit. Does the constitution say this? That they can't function as intended? Huh?
  • This was added by Coyatoc who is more of an expert than I am, based on a spanish language text. I'm not sure if this user is still active but hopefully they will respond to this ping and provide a better answer than I can. They did try to explain it in the talk page. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "It's the only entity" => "It is the only entity"
  • Done
• "Merged with Miahuatlán in 1891-1942" - this would be better as "Merged with Miahuatlán from 1891 to 1942" (and same for all other such notes)
  • This is another wording issue from the original text, it is perhaps not known which date the merger took place but somewhere between those dates? Otherwise I don't know why the source includes a range, will as Coyatoc about this as well.
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "more than any other state" in Mexico? Or globally?

  clarified

• Why is the American date format used?
  • This is the format of all the other featured list pages, I assume it's because the majority of English reader would use it this way? It is by no means exclusively American. Mattximus (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "La Reforma" should sort with "R". Check the rest.
  • Having some troubles with the coding using data-sort-value="Reforma, La". Still working on a fix but if you know what syntax I got wrong please let me know! Mattximus (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 21:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your work on lists of municipalities (shown on your userpage) is exemplary. I don't understand how this one got stalled ... let's un-stall it if we can.

• Thanks!

• "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose": I don't know what that means. How do they function, then? If you'd rather not say how at this point, then it would be better to omit this phrase here, and bring it up at the point where you want to explain it.

• This was added by Coyatoc who I'm certain can explain what this means however in their absence I will remove this phrase as I agree that it makes no sense without context.

• "It is the only entity in Mexico with this particular organization.": I don't know that that means. It's the only one with this many districts? With tax districts? With autonomous districts? With any districts at all?

• Clarified wording.

• "According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants": One option: "The 2020 Mexican Census reported it as the tenth most populated state, with 4,132,148 inhabitants." "recorded" or "listed" are possible ... present tense is also acceptable, but wouldn't be my choice.

• Changed wording to an active voice: "Oaxaca is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants as of the 2020 Mexican census and the 5th largest by land area"

• Agreed with Chris about the "merged with" wording in some of the notes ... there are options, but the current wording doesn't work, for instance in "Yutanduchi merged with San Pedro Teozacalco in 1937-1955". It's not clear what that's trying to say. "some time between 1937 and 1955" might work ... but perhaps that needs some explanation.
• "tenth most ... 5th largest": Maybe there's a reason it's written this way, but I don't know why it's not "10th ... 5th" or "tenth ... fifth".

• Easy fix. Both written out as per MOS.

• "Municipalities in Oaxaca are administratively autonomous of the state according to the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico.[5] Every three years, citizens elect ...": Just a suggestion ... the rest of the paragraph is clearer than the first sentence (and perhaps easier to back up with sources, I don't know). If I were writing it, I'd probaby just drop most of the first sentence, and start with something like "As established by the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico, citizens elect ... every three years ...".
  • I changed it to "have some administrative autonomy from the state". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The largest municipality by population is Oaxaca City, with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is Santa Magdalena Jicotlán with 81 residents": Maybe "The census [you probably don't need "The 2020 census"] lists Oaxaca City as the largest municipality by population with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is". I think once you've established that this is what the census said, then it's not jarring to say "the smallest is" ... the readers will get what that means.
  • I added "listed in the census". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just made a little tweak here.
• That's most of what I saw. Again, fine work, on this one and all the others. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• When I try to edit the page, I get "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors". I generally like to support as early in the process as I can, but I can't support with a template error ... see if you can find it. (One way to find which one it is: copy the references into userspace, and then toss them out one by one until you don't get the warning.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind ... I fixed it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, all of that looks good. I've just got a few more tweaks to make; I don't see any barrier to supporting now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm aware there's been some disagreement over the captions in the gallery; I have a proposed solution, but it was a little too complicated to talk about it, so I just made the edit. Feel free to change or revert it ... but I think, if you revert my edit, you're going to continue to get pushback from reviewers until there's some kind of change to make it less wordy. I think it would be a good idea to at least keep the images in their own section, as I did, or create a subsection or draw a box around the images. After this edit, you probably don't need that "<onlyinclude>" code now, but I didn't remove it because I don't know what it's for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, I don't recommend this, but I wouldn't be offended if you want to add back "fifth largest" or something to the fifth image caption. (Actually, I'm not offended by anything at FLC! It's just FLC.) But if the first caption says "largest" and the fifth caption says "fifth largest", there's no reason (that I can think of) to add "second largest" etc. to the other captions, and lots of reasons not to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This final form looks good to me, I'm not super attached to these captions, but it is the standard of the other lists, so I'm happy leaving this as is.
• Looking at the sort order in the second column, the only one that jumped out at me is Ixtepec, Oaxaca, with the official name "Ciudad Ixtepec". That should probably sort under "I" instead of "C".
  • I agree for entries like "la reforma" should sort as "R" not "L", but I can't seem to get the syntax to work! I tried using data-sort-value="Reforma, La" which has worked in the past but I don't know why it isn't working here. Any ideas what I got wrong? Below you seem ok with it, and I am too, but another editor requested this change.
• The links I checked were all fine except for one: La Compañía is linking to a Chilean town. You might want to check some of the other links.
• I checked List of cities in Mexico and a few other places to try to figure out how to sort, for instance, La Compañía ... so far, everything I'm seeing points to sorting this under "L". Works for me, but if I'm wrong, let me know.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the 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 actual problems (but this isn't a source review, and I'll check back after a source review is done). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. You might have comments on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude and HAL333: ... Mattximus and I have both done some work on this one, you might want to check back to see if these changes work for you. This one was stalled for a while, it looks like. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• One change: I added "or create a subsection or draw a box around the images" above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually ... now that I'm not committed to any one solution, it's probably better for me to self-revert the "Images" section, so I did. I still recommend picking one or more of those options. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across all your edits to this page and the rest of your comments, and I want to give you a big thank you, they are excellent. I might make a few tweaks but overall you've improved this list significantly. Please allow me some time to go through your remaining suggestions. Thanks again. I will try to review your list next. Mattximus (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I went through the comments, I think I've resolved or commented on everything. Please let me know if I missed anything! Thanks again!

I think you'll get pushback some day on the captions with "second largest", "third largest", etc., but we can work on that another day. I just changed "merged" to "was merged" in 5 rows. The link to the disambiguation page (La Compañía) will probably get fixed soon. I haven't examined the sources; I'll check back in after that gets done in the source review. Otherwise, you're good to go! - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were asking about "data-sort" ... I used that a lot in, for instance, List of plant family names with etymologies ... check it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, thx for the offer to review, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...more than any other state in Mexico - I saw the source you added and it is one of those where you have to manually choose what data to pull. To facilitate fact-checking for absolute statements of fact, could we perhaps use another source that explicitly mentions this? This one from FENAMM seems reliable. No need to delete the source you already have. My suggestion is this second one would strengthen the statement.

• Agree with your suggestion, added the reference you mentioned, thanks!.

• Several of the sources you use (the PDF ones) have tens of dozens of pages, yet you only cite the source as standalone. Could you please specify which pages in specific you used for the statements it is citing? Ref #2 has 183 pages, Ref #3 has 381, etc. I'm particularly concerned with "Estado de Oaxaca División Territorial de 1810 a 1995 (PDF)", which you used heavily. Are most facts concentrated on a few pages or are they spread out through the entire 145 pages? I'm happy to help with adding the hyperlinks for multiple pages if you need assistance.

• Sorry for the very long delay Morogris, I was quite ill for the past few weeks and starting to feel better now. This is a good suggestion, if it is followed it would require the addition of around 50 new references, just versions of the same one with the page number included. The references are spread around the large document. Good news is that the pdf is searchable using the find function so it is indeed possible to do this, I just want to make sure that this is what you want as it will take quite a lot of time to add these separate references. Mattximus (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #3 should have the parameter via=Biblioteca Legislativa de la Cámara de Diputados.

• Done

• Mexico Company Laws and Regulations Handbook. International Business Publications. 2009. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-4330-7030-3. - Maybe it is me, but the source is broken on my end. I get an Error 404. Not a requirement to FA status but if you have an alternative link that would be nice.

• Looks like google books deleted this entry as a new edition has been published, but I can't link to that as the mage references might have changed. Nice catch, I'll just leave it as a book reference. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Date formats. I advise you fix the dates formats from "2021-01-27" (for example) to "January 27, 2021" for consistency. There are instances where you vary.

• Nice catch, found 3 instances of this and changed as you advised. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for me. Amazing job putting this together! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this excellent review and some great catches. I've worked on a few but will get back to the rest later. Mattximus (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from outstanding questions, I believe I've responded to or completed all recommendations. Please let me know if I missed anything! Mattximus (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morogris. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging reviewers who did not support or oppose: @ChrisTheDude, HAL333, and Morogris: --PresN 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 are good
• Source 4 needs a page number
• Source 8 really has no known author? Also, is there a place of publication?

Minimal concerns here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than keep this open longer, I'll just address the source review myself: it was page 48 for source 4, and source 9 does not state an author, just the company that put it out. I didn't see a country of publication, but that's not usually stated in citations.

As a result, promoting this nomination. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, nominating Auba's international goal tally as I think i've covered just about every aspect required for FL status, it has a detailed stats section, good goal coverage for each match with match reports, and a solid lead detailing the most significant events of his international career.

Aubameyang represented Gabon for 13 years, and despite being born in France he is Gabon's all-time top scorer, thus being being worthy of a seperate list article from his bio. Big fan of his as he was a true servant at Arsenal, solid player. Idiosincrático (talk)

Comments

• Lead image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• Image caption does not really need that ref as it is referenced in the prose
• Burkina and Gabon nicknames should be in quote marks, not italics
• "His 13-year stop-start stint with The Panthers was mottled with controversy, tensions and setbacks, he was often" - Probably start a new sentence with "He was"
• "The spurn came" - spurn isn't a noun. Could probably just say "this came"
• Add "and" before "the decision of Aubameyang" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Cheers @ChrisTheDude Idiosincrático (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Phikia (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose there is a large amount of copyvio here: large sections of the lead are copied verbatim from the ESPN article. AryKun (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @AryKun, I've rewritten/removed sections referenced by the article, I hope it suffices, if not, let me know. Not sure what happened there, rather uncharacteristic of me. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck my oppose: I don't have the time to do a full review, so I'll leave it as a neutral. PresN, could you revdel the revisions with the copyvio? AryKun (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. --PresN 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great work! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Toy Story 3 regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 03:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incas chewing coca leaves, tapioca, pansies, and a plant that's 80,000 years old ... what else could you ask for in a plant list? Comments are welcome. Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. The sidebar at the upper right of the list page will help you look for other lists in this series, if that helps. Comments are welcome. We're almost done with the series. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - couldn't find anything to quibble about :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for looking. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Chris, everything is in good order. Another solid work on this series. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Very happy to see that you've been so active at FLC lately. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend linking to the author's article in the references. Other than that I don't see any major issues with this list. -- EN-Jungwon 13:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done in this edit. Thanks for reviewing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- EN-Jungwon 14:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No issues there. Support for an excellent work! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 00:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look good across the board, and no dead links were identified by the link-checker. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrfan Khan was one of the few actors to be successful in both Western and Indian cinema. He unfortunately died before his time in 2020. Here is a rundown of his key film and television roles. As always, I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG and @Krimuk2.0: No rush ... I'm just pinging because I don't want to jump into a review before I see if you guys are satisfied with the changes since the last nomination (where you both commented). - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I was not involved in the previous nomination. This was a project I was working on independently to the previous nominator. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I've always been a fan of your work. Still, it will help me out if, before I review, I can get a sense of whether they're both happy with how the article has changed since last month when the previous nomination was archived. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank sorry for the delayed response but the list looks much better than the last time. I’ll see if I have time for a full review. FrB.TG (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... not a problem, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't ignoring the previous reviews and reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Filmfare Award for Best Actor in a Negative Role" (in the Notes column): since filmographies and awards lists often list nominations as well as wins, it would be helpful if there were something in the table (in the column or in a header or in a key) indicating whether awards represent nominations or wins.
• Two films in the table that start with "The" aren't sorting correctly.
• Refs #16 and #134 don't have a "retrieved on" date. I'm not taking a position on whether refs #75, #91 and #131 need the same.
• The UPSD tool is a bit skeptical of Times of India; I'm not taking a position, I'm just asking you to search for and review these.
• The first comment (on YouTube) on the feature-length film sourced to YouTube implies that something (probably the film?) is still under copyright ... which seems likely.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool probably isn't indicating any actual problems (but see above; also, this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present (except as above).
• 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 one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families or (whenever I can nominate it) List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Your edits so far get it close enough for a support. Well done. I'll come back later and see what you decided to do with nominations vs. wins and the Times of India cites. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for the copyediting, looks much better. The Times of India is generally accepted for these type of lists as I think previous concerns were more about political coverage and potential promotional pieces but it would be uncontroversial to use it for simple facts like appearances in a film or television show. When the award is mentioned on its own in the notes it is a win, when it was just a nomination then it has "nominated" next to it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Times of India, all I wanted was for you to take a look ... which you did (you made one edit). On the subject of whether the word "nomination" should appear somewhere (more than just the one time) ... it's not something I care about, I'm just saying that I'm aware that it's something people talk about sometimes. All good! - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Scope row should be placed on the film title and not the year. This is a list of films and not of years, after all.
• I would archive the sources to prevent link rot.
• I'm not particularly familiar on the reliability of Indian sources, so I yield that to the source reviewer.
• There's some inconsistency in the notes column. Do blank rows imply that he was in pretty much every episode of the series? Why give the titles for the Star Bestsellers episodes if it isn't done elsewhere?

That's all I got. Glad to see Khan is getting some attention. He was a good actor. ~ HAL333 17:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks for your review. I have amended the above. In terms of the notes column, I have added info where it is available for number of episodes he appeared and names of episodes in long-running television shows. Some he would have appeared in every episode e.g. host of the show. Others there isn't the info so I have left that blank. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Oceanian bird list, pretty short, with the standard style. AryKun (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Some comments, all of them optional:

• A separate map of Tokelau could help the reader, as the one with the location on the globe is just a tiny circle.
  • Replaced the map with one of Oceania that slightly magnifies the view to show three distinct atolls.
• The introduced species, does it refer to the chicken or to the actually wild red junglefowl? I'd perhaps also mention it in the intro, where you say 33 species, one introduced.
  • They're feral chickens, but I've kept it as "feral red junglefowl" because the list mentions only Gallus gallus and chickens are a subspecies anyway.
• An information about since when the owl has been locally extinct - as you mention some other birds present before the human contact.
  • I can't find another source mentioning the owl and Tokelau; only the list, which doesn't provide a date. This is probably because of the lack of proper surveys of Tokelau.

And also thank you for checking my nomination. --Tone 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, I've replied to all of your comments above. AryKun (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tone 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add url access to ref 18.
  • Done.
• Move categories and defaultsort to the bottom.
  • Done.
• Is there a reason why <references /> instead of {{Reflist}}
  • Not really, it was just what was in the article originally. Replaced.
• Link authors in the references if they have an article.
  • Done; I think only Steadman and Clements have articles.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 09:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, I've replied to all your comments. AryKun (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, could you review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Music Bank Chart winners (2018)/archive1, thanks. -- EN-Jungwon 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• As I mentioned in the last review of these bird lists, I really like the approach here.
• "Additionally, Anas ducks are also": You don't need both.
  • Reworded.
• "with other tropical trees like ... also being present.": You don't need both. "Along with other tropical trees like" works, and "X, Y and Z are also present" works.
  • reworded.
• "with medium nasal septum": Nothing wrong with this in isolation, but since you're making an effort to avoid similar jargon in the rest of the article (for instance, you say "with the head", not "with head"), "with medium nasal septa" or "with a medium nasal septum" would be more consistent.
  • Reworded.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, the prose checks out. There are no tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, I've replied to all your comments. AryKun (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Well done. You might be interested in reviewing (when this link turns blue) WP:Featured list candidates/List of malvid families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of the species" --> "One species" would be more concise
  • Done.
• "which consists of quails, partridges, snowcocks, francolins" --> "that consists of quails, partridges, snowcocks, francolins"

• Also, if the family is itself plural here (hence "are"), should that be

• Done.

• The Oxford comma is sometimes used and sometimes not.
  • Added the Oxford comma throughout.

That's all. ~ HAL333 17:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I've replied to all your comments. AryKun (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, just a reminder. AryKun (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford comma issue hasn't been fully fixed (e.g. "slender bodies, long tails and strong legs" and several other spots) but everything else looks good. ~ HAL333 15:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, these commas are super irritating. I think I've finally got them all; could you check again? AryKun (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the only one I saw.~ HAL333 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay, and the link-checker tool detects no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 June 2023 (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. 22:12, 4 June 2023 (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, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the success of Wednesday, I felt like it would be appropriate to nominate this for feature list status.Thankfully, the User:InternetArchiveBot started working again. Leo Mercury (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "For her Woody Allen-directed performances in the films" - "For her performances in the Woody Allen-directed films" would be slightly better IMO
• "Lonesome Dove (1989), The Mists of Avalon (2001), and Medium (2008–2009), all of which were nominated at the Primetime Emmy Awards." => "Lonesome Dove (1989), The Mists of Avalon (2001), and Medium (2008–2009), for all of which she was nominated at the Primetime Emmy Awards."
• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done! --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If she hasn't received any recognition as an author, I would leave that part out from the lead. Also, I would consolidate "director and producer" as "filmmaker".
• Do we really need the one-sentence lead sentence to stand on its own as a paragraph? It can easily be merged with the second para.
• "She also received acclaim for her portrayal of the Grand High Witch in Roald Dahl's film adaptation The Witches (1990)" - while the source does say her performance is known for its "vampy splendor", I don't think that necessarily counts as "critical acclaim". FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Leo Mercury (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, spot checks not done. Version reviewed:

• Ref 15: What makes Movie City News a high-quality source?

Image review:

• No concerns.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above is addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've just changed the source to one from the Los Angeles Times. Thanks, Z1720 (talk · contribs)! --Leo Mercury (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns have been addressed above. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All film titles, including partial titles, within article titles used for citations or references should be italicized .

--Birdienest81talk 08:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, Birdienest81 (talk · contribs) --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: That's all I have.

--Birdienest81talk 07:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (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, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dune is a 2021 American epic science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Villeneuve, Jon Spaihts, and Eric Roth. Based on mostly the first half of Frank Herbert's novel of the same name, the film stars Timothée Chalamet as Paul Atreides, a Mentat living in the distant future from House Atreides, who is thrust into a war for the deadly and inhospitable desert planet Arrakis. This is my ninth 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, CODA, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I did work a little on this list, especially before it was split from Dune (2021 film), but it has been significantly updated since I worked on it.

• Infobox is missing Grande Prêmio do Cinema Brasileiro
• "worlwide" is a typo
• "proudction design" is a typo
• "...the 94th Academy Awards including Best Picture and..." → "...the 94th Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and..."
  • Also, maybe mention that Dune was the most-recognized film at that year's Oscars? Could be as simple as saying "went on to win a leading six awards".
• "...the 79th Golden Globe Awards winning one..." → "...the 79th Golden Globe Awards, winning one..."
• Link text for AARP Movies for Grownups Award for Best Director should only read "Best Director"
• Lists of names use inconsistent formatting – compare "Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth" (no serial comma), "Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve, and Eric Roth" (includes serial comma), and "Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve, Eric Roth" (doesn't use "and"). Pick one format and use it consistently.
• For the Academy Award for makeup/hairstyling, add a comma after Mowat
• For the Make-Up Artists Guild, remove the space between Mowat and the comma
• Assuming the SBIFF award is sponsored by Variety, use italics for "Variety Artisans Award"
• Use an en dash for "Best Adapted Screenplay – Film" at the USC Scripter Awards
• For the WGA Awards, don't use an ampersand
• "Clint Bennett, Ryan Rubin, Peter Myles" does not sort correctly

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @RunningTiger123: Done: I have read all your comments and have made corrections based off of them. I also found that the International Film Music Critics Association Awards were missing on the table and have added them onto it. If you could kindly maybe do a rewrite of the Andrea Risenborough section of the 95th Academy Awards since that is the next list I will be working on (submitting it for FLC on July 18, hopefully). I would greatly appreciate since you probably could handle such subject more objectively than I could. I will try to look over your nominations for Modern Family accolades list around Wednesday when I have more time.

--Birdienest81talk 09:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "At the 75th British Academy Film Awards, the film received eleven nominations and received five for" - think the words "awards" is missing after "five"
• Think that's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done: I have read all your comments and have made corrections based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 07:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for tidying up the list to an FL-esque one. Nice work! Chompy Ace 07:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source and image reviews – The photos each have an appropriate free license, caption and alt text, and the sources are well-formatted and reliable. The link-checker tool indicates that refs 66 and 86 gave it download errors, but I checked them manually and they seem to be working fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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