Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2021

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Stanley Kubrick's films. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors. ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra

• The second lead paragraph has an issue with repetitive "He directed A. Then he directed B. Then he directed C. Then he directed D." type of writing, especially in the beginning where we list off his documentaries and first feature film one by one.
• While the unfinished film may have been named by Kubrick after Pinocchio, linking the article on the character here gives one the impression that the link will take one to an article about the unfinished film - especially as it is italicized like a title. I would suggest unlinking it.
• The wording of the annotation Also editor, director of special effects, and breathing sounds read literally means that Kubrick was the breathing sounds rather than that he made them
• Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will take another look.--Alexandra^IDV 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV I've worked on the prose. ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose, although I am unsure re: the concerns over criterion 3c that RunningTiger123 brought up.--Alexandra^IDV 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally support on 3c with the addition of the reception list--Alexandra^IDV 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The only thing I can add to the above is that the prose is a bit choppy in places, with short sentences which could be joined together, e.g. "His final film was the erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film was released posthumously in 1999" - that seven-word sentence could easily be joined to the previous one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV, ChrisTheDude I have done some work addressing the 3c issues. ~ HAL333 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – While this page is well-done, I just don't see how this is long enough to justify a stand-alone list. Per FL criterion #3c, featured lists "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", but at just 16 items, this is so short that it could easily go in the article Stanley Kubrick. I also checked other FLs for director filmographies, and the shortest I could find is probably Christopher Nolan filmography, which is almost twice as long (and likely to grow). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] RunningTiger123 Would merging it with List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films or maybe List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick fix that? ~ HAL333 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the former is a good option. Kubrick's collaborations seem to have been more by happenstance than the result of a serious working relationship, so I don't think they're particularly notable, especially since most of them are just in two films. (Compare it to something like List of frequent David Lynch collaborators; Lynch's relationships seem more deliberate, span more works, and are documented in third-party sources.) The accolades list is also not great, since normally filmographies and accolades are kept separate and Kubrick has enough accolades to justify a separate list. The best option might be Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects, though I definitely think you should get a better consensus than just my opinion before doing that. Maybe a discussion at Talk:Filmography of Stanley Kubrick with links to the discussion at Talk:Stanley Kubrick and Talk:Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects would be good so other people can consider what the best option might be. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've been able to think it over. I agree with your concern about merging List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick films - I would not be able to find sources for several of those actors anyway. And I don't think that I would be able to merge Stanley Kubrick's unrealized projects without losing most of its content and/or giving it undue weight. Why should a script he considered in the 1950s have 10 times the content that 2001 does? That leaves List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick, which I actually split from the article, which used to be Filmography and Awards of Stanley Kubrick. As Kubrick wasn't exactly a massive award-winner, I think I can add the content in a tight little table. It also fits nicely with my discussion of his personal wins in the final lede paragraph. Would that be okay? ~ HAL333 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I see your point about the unrealized projects. The awards could work, though there are quite a few awards that aren't listed on the other page (WGA and DGA need to be added, and some of the critics' groups listed on IMDb may merit mention). Again, though, I think this needs to be discussed by other people, as my opinion isn't the only one that matters for this review. Community consensus is the most important part of the review process, and that should be our focus. Heck, if other people review this list and can come to the consensus that it meets criterion #3c as is, I'll remove my "oppose" vote. I just think this is something that needs to be duly considered. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Link to discussion ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Also, that old version of the page that you linked included a section titled "Cameos and other work". Is there a reason that disappeared? RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I couldn't find any reliable sources to support them. ~ HAL333 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's what I figured, I just wanted to check. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I've seen something else that might work for this. I saw that the new FL candidate M. Night Shyamalan filmography includes a table summarizing critical reception for Shyamalan's films – i.e. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore grades. I think this would be a great option to add to this page and give it more content to stand on its own. The article for Kubrick doesn't contain this information, so as it stands currently, the information is spread across the individual film articles. Summarizing it here seems reasonable. What do you think? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] RunningTiger123  Done ~ HAL333 17:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Are the numbers accurate? The scores for 2001: A Space Odyssey in particular appear wrong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Just double-checked and fixed them. Sorry about that. ~ HAL333 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – With the addition of a reception section, this page now has enough information to stand on its own, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• My first thought when I started reading was that it would be really difficult to write a good lead for a Stanley Kubrick list ... he went in so many different directions in his career. But you did it, and made it hang together ... well done.
• I don't have a preference, but "Dr. Strangelove" (as a film title, not a person) is normally alphabetized under D rather than S (and this is where you put it in the second table, but not in the first). In the second table, A Clockwork Orange should be filed under C, not A. Also, don't alphabetize these under "The": The Killing, The Seafarers, The Shining. Otherwise, the coding in the table seems fine.

Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 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. You make good use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• General: I think the formal awards he received for his work are more important than the critical reception from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, so I'd expect to see all those nominations and awards listed in a table here. Ok, it's listed as a "See also". Perhaps put {{main}} at the top of the section instead?
• "13 feature films and three" comparable figures should be all words or all numbers.
• "It was Kubrick's last film that he did not also write" the table seems to imply he was a writer on Lolita but just not credited.
• "2001 garnered ..." we're encouraged to avoid starting sentences with a numeral...
• You mention Vladimir Nabokov but not Anthony Burgess?

Good point. ~ HAL333 18:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead talks about critics but doesn't seem to relate to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, I mean for example FMJ which is pretty iconic, and that's related in the second table but not mentioned at all in the lead.
• Check references for those which require subscriptions (e.g. the NYT) which need url-access=subscription adding to the cite template.
• Ref 5 -> "The" Independent.
• Ref 54, The Guardian is a work.

Not sure what's happening. It's a work in the code, but isn't italicized. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ HAL333 04:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an errant apostrophe in the title, I fixed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "British filmographies" a category?

From my understanding, some of the editors at Stanley Kubrick insist that he is British and the category was an addition done years back. Although born American, Kubrick moved to a country estate in the UK, where he made the rest of his films. I'm largely indifferent to the issue, but I'm fine removing it if you find it inappropriate. ~ HAL333 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that there's a category here that isn't reflected or mentioned in the article at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. ~ HAL333 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Shouldn't it be |url-access=registration for the NYT?
  • it's missing for ref 50 as well
• ref 56 doesn't have Ebert listed as the author link the others

Reliability

• no doubts here, all reputable news sources

Verifiability

• the link for ref 43 seems to be broken Aza24 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the source review, Aza. ~ HAL333 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Birdienest81 Shouldn't the titles of the references (i.e. NYT, Variety) be wikilinked? I don't care if you do it every time or the first mention. I've never really seen much use in doing that and have always thought that it was just a matter of personal preference. But, I may be wrong, and, if you can point me towards the policy, I'll be happy to oblige. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ref 4 is actually from DGA Quaterly which has its own article here on Wikipedia. Done. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Refs 15 and 25 are from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization behind the Oscars) Good catch. ~ HAL333 15:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's from a quick rundown. I see more, but I'll elaborate further soon. Nevertheless, these should be easy to fix and the list looks almost ready for FL status. --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Most of my other concerns were raised up by SNUGGUMS. Well done.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support following sufficient changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comments from Sdkb

• Two quick comments on the external links section: I think it's just "Rotten Tomatoes", not "the Rotten Tomatoes".

Done. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be nice to have some indication of who designed the kubrick.life site, rather than just having a bare link.

It seems to have been created by no one of note. I added "educational site" as I figure the names wouldn't have been of much help. ~ HAL333 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies FL criteria. Information in this list is sourced (which is rather easy given MTV's comprehensive archives), and it is also informative regarding the awards' history and selection. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven nominations as a solo artist" - are the words "as a solo artist" actually needed here?

• There is one extra nomination as a group member of D12, so I think it's better to include "as a solo artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I missed that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "For artists who are not from the U.S." - I think "Among artists who are not from the U.S." would be better, personally

• Fixed, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Road to Nowhere is missing it closing quote mark

• Added, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "David Lee Roth (1985), U2 (1988), and Lady Gaga (2010) are the only performers to have two Video of the Year nominations in one night" - Missy Elliott had two in 2001, Rihanna had two in 2012, and Kendrick Lamar had two in 2015 as well

• Curiously MTV (apparently) does not count featured/guest appearances. For instance, the "Telephone" (Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce) win for Best Collaboration was counted for Gaga only ([3]). Revised "as a lead artist", HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2013 there's a random stray curly bracket at the end of the first nominee

• I think it's fixed now, HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments! I have responded as above. HĐ (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ashleyyoursmile

• I think the first link on MTV should be on ref 2 and not on ref. 6. Accordingly, any target on MTV should be removed from subsequent references.
• Link on Billboard should be removed from refs 8 and 43, since its already linked on ref 5.

Great work with the list. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments. I have added wikilinks to all references, as it does not constitute WP:OVERLINK. HĐ (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying. I support this for promotion. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• In the lead, you have both 2019 and 2020 as years that You Need to Calm Down was awarded. According to the table, it looks like the 2020 one at the end of the second paragraph is incorrect.
  • Whoops, corrected. HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:LAYOUT, the see also section should go before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them accordingly, HĐ (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the MTV logo in the infobox.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part, is the most prestigious competitive award, is it necessary to clarify that it is a competitive award? I know the VMAs do honorary awards, like the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, but I am uncertain this clarification is really necessary.

• I think it could be removed altogether. I don't think keeping it as merely the most prestigious would be convincing given that the Vanguard is more (or less) celebrated. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more of a clarification question, but does this award only go to the performer(s) and not the music video director or anyone else associated with production?

• Yes, the award goes to the performers, as indicated at MTV's archive list. The directors/producers have their own category (Best Direction/Editing/Cinematography, if I am correct). I was kind of surprised to find out so, but I guess that's probably why the MTV VMAs are more popular than the Grammys for Music Videos in terms of teen popularity. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the explanation! That was what I got from the list, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk)

• I think this part, the winners are determined by viewers' votes through MTV's website, would read better like, viewers vote for the winners through MTV's website, as it would put it in the active tense and avoid having two similar sentences in a row.

• I think it's okay to keep it as it is, to make in consistent with the previous sentence's wording. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For parts like these, Eminem with "The Real Slim Shady" (2000) and "Without Me" (2002), I would think it should be "for" not "with" as those artists won the awards for these videos.

• Fixed. HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. My suggestions are very nitpick-y as the list is already very strong. It is interesting to think about how the VMAs (and award ceremonies in general) have changed over the years. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and far more out of touch with new music trends, but I did not even watch or remember much of the last VMA show lol. Either way, I will support this when my comments are addressed, and I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them accordingly. Your help is always very much appreciated! HĐ (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am glad that I can help. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Some sources, e.g. NYT appear to require a subscription, so that means adding url-access=subscription to the citations.
• Does ref 1 refer to this as "the most prestigious"?
• "Since 2006, the " bit Easter eggy, so perhaps "Since the 2006 awards," and pipe "the 2006 awards".
• "most nominations, with seven nominations " repetitive use of nominations.
• "second most" should be hyphenated when used adjetively.
• And do you need "is the artist with" or would "has" just suffice?
• " in one night" odd, maybe "in one ceremony" or "at a single awards" or something.
• " Video Vanguard Award " what's that? Not explained anywhere here.
• Image captions which are complete sentences should end with a full stop.
• "Girls Just Want to Have Fun " is unnecessarily piped.
• Why is "This Note's for You" linked? Is it not notable?
• "Cryin'" is unnecessarily piped.
• "featuring The LOX" should be "the LOX".
• "Jesus Walks" is unnecessarily piped.
• Pussycat Dolls has "The" in front of it.
• You use different pipes for Humble in table and image caption.
• Worth noting how many of these also won the MTV Europe Music Award for Best Video.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. HĐ (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now support. GagaNutella^talk 02:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks great. I just have a few questions.

• "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven as a solo artist" -- Does Eminem have more nominations with a group? If so that should be mentioned with a footnote, and if not I think "as a solo artist" is redundant here. Even "as a lead artist" will probably be a better term to use.

• He does. I added a note to explain, and revised it to "lead artist". HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason why the nationalities are relegated to brackets? (instead of "Barbadian singer Rihanna and Irish band U2")

• I did so to fit in with the country name "the U.S." for American artists. HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "an honorary award for artist who had "profound impact" on music video and popular culture" -- Is "artists" and "music videos" being singular here grammatically correct?

• Changed to plural. HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "performers" seems like a weird substitute for "artists" in the context of this list since this category doesn't inherently have anything to do with performing. I would suggest sticking to "artists", "recipients", "nominees", etc.

• Changed to "artists". HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--NØ 12:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all :) HĐ (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now :)--NØ 02:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now support for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (you had one cite as "cite journal" instead of "cite web", which I fixed since it wasn't to an academic journal); promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary has 8 WHS and 11 sites on the tentatative list. The style is following the WHS lists that have been promoted so far. Since Greece and Cypruss are seeing good support so far, I am nominating a new list. Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I've been told in the past (by the FL director) that an editor shouldn't have three FLCs open at one time, so it might be best to wait until either Cyprus or Greece has been promoted........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had three open if the other two had a strong support (which I interpret they have at the moment). But if this is a problem, this one can be put on stand-by. --Tone 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need "As of 2021", this isn't something rapidly going out of date.
• Budapest row has an extra column
• "within the Hungarian nation" is really weird, "of the Hungarian people" or something reads better. You're paraphrasing too closely to the source again.
• "erected to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary in 896" is lifted straight from the source without even paraphrase. Please write everything in your own voice.
• "The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century" again just copied.
• Esztergom should have a description even if the UNESCO site doesn't
• The external link should have (in Hungarian) after the link

Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Reywas92: I think I'm done. I'd leave "as of 2021", since nominations at least are updated rather often in some cases, and new sites are added every year (not to every country, of course). Are you using some tool to find paraphrasings too close? I know there used to be one, that would be helpful in future. Thank you for the review! --Tone 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I can just tell when the wording doesn't sound as natural like the above ("thousandth") and ctrl-F on the unesco site. There were others I found but these were the longest that needed to be changed. Noticing in your edit that Esztergom has been rolled into the newer Royal Seats nomination, I'm guessing it could just be deleted. I'm wondering if the Hungarian cultural office has its own site like [5]/[6] that has its own list rather than all sources being only to UNESCO. Anyway, Support, and a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated if you have a chance. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Well, sometimes the old nominations are removed by the committee and sometimes they persist. There does not seem to be a strict rule. But, as long they are listed on the UNESCO site, they should be here as well... I will have a look at the list you mention. --Tone 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments One of the others has closed so this one is definitely OK to stay open now........ "The first two sites in Hungary were on the list" => "The first two sites in Hungary were added to the list" "These were the village of Hollókő and Budapest, the Banks of the Danube" - I would change the second part to just "the city of Budapest" to make it more concise (I know the official name was longer than that but I think it makes it harder to read "Budapest was created with the unification of three cities" => "Budapest was created by the unification of three cities" "Among the few man-made structures in the plains" => "Among the few man-made structures on the plains" "were influenced with art from Italy and France" => "were influenced by art from Italy and France" Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] @ChrisTheDude: done, thank you! I also expanded the intro with a suggestion from one of the previous nominations. --Tone 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment "The first two sites in Hungary were added to the list [......] These were the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest, the Banks of the Danube with the district of Buda Castle" - I still think this reads a little oddly. Depending on how you read it, it could be that "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest" is one site and the rest is the second, or possibly that there are three or even four different sites mentioned, which doesn't agree with the previous sentence. I think it should either be shorted to simply "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest" or else the sundry part of the Budapest site should be in brackets, eg "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest (the latter including the Banks of the Danube and the district of Buda Castle)" or "the village of Hollókő and the city of Budapest (the latter specifically covering the Banks of the Danube and the district of Buda Castle)". Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree, this is clumsy. What about now? Adding the parenthesis would just make more problems since I already used one set. --Tone 15:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Spaced hyphens in refs 23, 24 and in the "Komárno - Komárom*" title, should all be en-dashes.
• You link "Buda Castle" in "Buda Castle Quarter" in the title of the site and then in the description you don't link castle but link the quarter, despite mentioning the castle first. I would link the quarter in the title and the castle itself in the description.
• Where's the Metro Line M1 mentioned in the source?
• "Counties" no reason for that to be capitalised.
• "landscape.The " space before The.
• "Several 18th and 19th-century" I would have "18th- and 19th-century" here.
• Don't link empty cells, put a centred em-dash for sites with no images in the image column.
• "The largest ... the largest..." repetitive prose.
• Could find a link for stud farm.

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Fixed, thanks! As for the dashes in the empty figures, in lists such as Cyprus I am not using anything. I'd like to be consistent on that. --Tone 09:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You link the second use of 'Buda Castle'.
  • Fixed.
• I cannot see in the citation where it says that Buda Castle was the residence of Hungarian monarchs.
  • Removed, this is indeed not directly stated.
• The only dates in the Budapest description are in the 19th century. I think you should give the age of the sites.
  • I added some. The architecture styles also indicate the age, indirectly.
• Perhaps worth quoting that Budapest is "one of the world's outstanding urban landscapes"?
  • I somehow suspect that another reviewer will call this "tourist brochure talk" ;)
• "the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary". By who?
  • Rewritten, does it makes sense now? I didn't want to write "Hungarian conquest of Hungary", that is just superflouos.

• That is OK, but how about "Magyar conquest ofHungary"?

• I was considering it but Hungary got its name only afterwards, after Hungarians, so that's still not perfect.

• "the area has no permanent residents". The citation says "almost no permanent residents"
  • Fixed.
• "Several 18th- and 19th-century villages and castles" The citation does not mention castles. It says 12 and 13C towns and villages and 18 and 19C palaces.
  • I actually copied that from the description in Austria's list. Good that you spotted it, I will fix it there as well. Not sure how this happened.
• "Tokaj Wine Region, which was formally established in 1737 by Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor". Perhaps worth saying that wine production is documented back to 1561.
  • Sounds good, added.
• "It contains the remains of a shallow sea from the Miocene epoch." This is wrong. The Miocene started 23 million years ago and the citation says the sea dates to 24 million years ago.
  • Good point, I added "mostly" since 23-19 MA is Miocene. Neogene starts together with Neogene, if I wanted to cover broader I'd have to write Paleogene and Neogene, which is very broad. Makes sense?

• I am still not sure it is correct. The source says 24 million years old, not starting then and continuing into the Miocene. Why not just say 24 million years old?

• The way I read the reference is that the sediments were piling up from 24 MA to 19 MA when they were covered following a volcanic eruption. So it is not only 24, it is the entire period.

• The expert report at [7] says 24 to 21 mya. The Oligocene was from 34 to 23 mya and the Miocene from 23 to 5 mya, so how about "late Oligocene and early Miocene"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like that. Great :)

• "Hungarian architect Ödön Lechner". Is there a reason the link is here and not in the first mention in 'Site'?
  • Where there is no dedicated article (such as The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier), I try to link the geographic article in the site, but here it is a person. Not sure if this is the best reasoning.
• "in the 17th and 18th centuries, following the 150-year Ottoman reign". This is odd on several counts. Ottoman rule is not mentioned in the citation, it only covered part of Hungary, and it ended in 1699 so some of the towers were built during Ottoman rule.
  • It mentions the Ottomans (Turks) but I agree, the whole sentence is confusing. I rewrote that part, in a more extensive manner.
• This is an interesting article, but checking a few points shows up several errors. I think it needs a thorough source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm through. Thank you for a detailed review, as always! --Tone 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Assuming ref 10 should have a date like ref 7

Reliability

• No issues here. All refs are from the UNESCO website—which is standard with UNESCO lists; Dorling Kindersley is a reputable publisher

Verifiability

• Need a page number for ref 21 Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Could I ask for a your opinion here? This reference is copied from the stud farm article, AGF, in order to justify the wikilnk the Furioso-North Star, since the UNESCO reference only mentions the Mezohegyes halfbred. I could use the reference from that article, Reddick, Kate. Horses. New York, Ridge Press, 1976, p. 64., but that one is missing ISBN. I found a bunch of horse-related websites but I am not sure which one could be considered as reliable here. I fixed the ref 10 date. --Tone 08:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I moved your comment below where I'm assuming you meant to respond) Tone, I search in the google book, can you tell if are either of these two pages the right one from the snippet preview(s)? Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, perfect, thanks :) --Tone 09:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the tables in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption) for screen reading software to detect, which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and done it for you here (it's a relatively recent requirement, and not always enforced as it should be), but please keep it in mind for future lists

Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to save space on the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, a series of sub-articles was created. This list documents the ~40 gentlemen who earned the Victoria Cross, while they served with the division throughout four different wars (the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and the First and Second World Wars). I initially put this up reviewed at A-Class standard, but was advised to proceed to here. I look forward to feedback and improving the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "published in the The London Gazette" - stray word there

  Thanks for the catch, and removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does ref 1 cover the whole first paragraph

  Yes. I could split the ref into two, although it would then be one ref for the first three sentences and another for the final sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "eighteen members of the division were earned VCs" => "eighteen members of the division earned VCs"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs look better centred, IMHO

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a difference between Lieutenant (Acting Captain) and Lieutenant (temporary Captain)?

  Yes, but I cannot explain the difference. The Gazette uses that wording for those individual's ranks. I have looked at various sources, but cannot offer an explanation to what the difference between each (the explanations I have seen are, for me at least, beyond confusing). I have seen examples of acting officers becoming temporary officers and vice versa.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't linked in the template at the bottom. It should either be linked or the template removed

  I have added the article to the template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns with either comments or tweaks to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments Really good lead and sourcing. ThanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Image needs alt text for accessibility. I have entered some alt-text, although I am not sure its the bestEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Names should sort by last name – use Template:Sortname or data-sort-value=Last, First. Template insertedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Sources column should be unsortable. Tweaked madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Consider changing from absolute to relative column widths – allows for better use of screen space. I have updated the columns, hopefully this works? The links to Battle of Inkerman for Thomas Beach and Battle of Colenso for William Babtie are confusing, since every other link in the column is to a place. I would replace or remove them. I have updated the links, so that they go to the actual location and not the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] — RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your review and comments, I have attempted to address all of your points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Whoever suggested posting this here had a great idea; this is a great list! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

• The table has been made sortable since I looked previously. I am afraid this means you will now need to wikilink any item that appears multiple times each time it appears, not just the first. Hopefully this can be done relatively painlessly with a search-and-replace...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just made an edit to the article to add in links for everything. It looks really wrong to me lol. But, hopefully, this is the now in the correct standard for a list?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (I fixed a redlink for you) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Image is freely licensed, per my evaluation at the ACR.[9] (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure that "Russian Empire" is a "country". I mean, you use "India" or "Colony of Natal", not British Empire.
• Why are we told that Natal is a colony. You don't use Republic of France' or 'Kingdom of Belgium'.

  I have not made changes in reference to either of these two point just yet. My understanding is that "Russian Empire" was the name of the state, the Crimea being part of it, and not one of the empire's colonies or territories outside of the core (i.e. Alaska, Finland, Poland etc.). I am more than happy to reword this, but I don't think "Russia" would suffice as it would appear to refer more to the modern state? I concede the point on Natal, I can change that to just Natal?

Russia was Russia before it was an empire, while it was an empire and after it ceased to be an empire. Just like Britain. If the fighting had been in Kent, not Crimeria, would you not have written "Britain", not "British Empire"?

That is a fair point. I have piped the link to the Russian Empire to just state Russia. Likewise, for Natal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the hyphenated ranks see MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name".

  I just wanted to check in on this one, prior to making changes. The Gazette capitalizes both parts of the rank, and this is the way the rank is wrote in other sources. Would this not be considered a proper name then? Or, would that only apply if it was used in a sentence i.e. "blah blah Brevet-Major John Conolly..."? Checking in primarily for my own confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! Usually I am strong on the MoS, but you raise a good point - which I had missed - and the Gazette is the RS. False alarm, apologies, leave them as they are.

• Why do you give the departments for some locations - Oppy, Pas-de-Calais - but not others - Delville Wood?

  For Oppy, I had just left it alone based off the article name. I have piped it, so there is conformity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In cites 3 and 4, several uses of "p." should be 'pp.'.

  Thanks for the catch, I have fixed these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Victoria Cross Heroes" is missing a publisher location.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As is "The Evolution of the Victoria Cross".

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Midas books" → 'Midas Books'.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood-down." I am not sure that "stood-down" is the appropriate expression. Eg, see Wikt:stand-down: A time when soldiers are not on alert.

  I have reworded this to disbandedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was again raised". Perhaps 'formed' instead of "raised"?

  Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "so its forces could be reassigned elsewhere". "elsewhere" from where? (I suggest deletion.)

  Word removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "by soldiers who had been part of the division" → 'by soldiers who were part of the division'.

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "the division had not been in battle". "had" → 'has'.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A great list. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thank you for your time in reviewing another article. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments, and left a few of my own were changes have not been made just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header; column headers should be tagged with scope="col", and the cells of the primary (first) column should be tagged with scope="row". These are to allow screen reading software to parse the tables correctly. I've gone ahead and done this for you; if you bring future lists to FLC please keep this in mind. Beyond that, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FL nomination, so feedback from the FL regulars would be much appreciated. I've improved this article several times over the years, most significantly in the past week, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from HAL You should center the refs in the column. Use |style="text-align:center;"| Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] president of Georgetown University doesn't need to be bolded. Done. Ergo Sum 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] You should add scope to the column with their names. User !scope=row| I think I've done it correctly here. Is the bolded text and darker cell background supposed to be the correct output (instead of for the number column)? Ergo Sum 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] The lede looks good. But it could be better. I think you could expand the third paragraph by noting some trends and nuances. Gender, shortest-serving, their background, other interesting things, etc. There's not a whole lot more I think can be put into the lede but I will do some digging. My only concern with trends was verifiability. I won't be able to find sources for trends, but would have to infer it from the table below. Not 100% sure whether that's allowed by policy. Ergo Sum 19:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've fleshed out the third paragraph with trends about religious order membership and how many went on to become bishops, etc. I can't think of/find a whole lot more to add to the lede. Ergo Sum 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm not a huge fan of having the references in the notes column. I would move them to the ref column. The only reason I've done that is because there would otherwise be 4 or more links in the references column for some people, which seems unsightly and a bit confusing for readers. Right now, the references in the ref column support their order in the sequence and the dates of their office. I admit it's not a great setup to have some refs in the ref column and some in the notes column, but I'm not sure how else to do it. Ergo Sum 19:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] It would be nice if you put a few of the better portraits of the presidents to the right of the table. I have correctly licensed portraits for every president but one. I considered creating a column for portraits between number and name (e.g. List of presidents of Washington College). Do you think it would be better to do that or just have a couple to the right of the table? The only downside to having a dedicated column would be that it would lengthen the table and create some empty space for people with nothing in the notes column. Ergo Sum 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] That's all for now. I'll be back. ~ HAL333 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] @HAL333: Have you had a chance to take a look at my comments? Ergo Sum 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments I agree that the lead is a bit "thin" and could do with a bit of expansion I will see what else can be added. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] As I mentioned above a moment ago, I've fleshed out the third paragraph with what I could find in terms of extra detail. Ergo Sum 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] When sorting on the "No" column, the dash against Quain jumps to the top. You need to use a hidden sort template to make it sort between 44 and 45 Done. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] On that note, why does Quain not have a number against his spell as acting president, yet the other two who served in that capacity do have a number? This has perplexed me. In virtually every source mentioning Georgetown presidents, there is no mention of Quain. However, the third Curran book lists Quain as an acting president in the list of presidents. The problem with this is that whenever a president is referred to as the 48th, 47th, etc. president, that numbering must omit Quain in the order, otherwise, the number would be one higher. Ergo Sum 19:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] After thinking about it, I've removed Quain from the list. I looked up his position and he was chairman of the board. So, while it may be true that he "acted" as president, I don't think he was actually an "acting" president in the same sense as the other acting presidents (which conventionally receive a number). The Curran source, while authoritative, seems to be an anomaly on the question of Quain, so I will go with the rest of the sources. Ergo Sum 19:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Refs should be centred, as mentioned above Done. Ergo Sum 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Notes against Grassi need a full stop at the end I'm not sure what you mean. I've used periods to separate groupings of notes and semicolons within groupings. E.g. all positions are separated by semicolons but positions from alumni status are separated by periods. Ergo Sum 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I can't remember the page, but there's a MOS page that says that in a case where you combine multiple sentence fragments in something like a note, if you have full stops anywhere then you need a full stop at the end. So in the note against Grassi, because you have a full stop after "Rector of the Pontificio Collegio Urbano de Propaganda Fide (1840–1842)" then the whole note needs to end with a full stop. Does that help? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Oh, I see. I'll fix that. Ergo Sum 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] NB It only applies if there is a full stop anywhere in the note -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Same with Fenwick's first spell Conversely, the notes on Fenwick's second spell have a full stop but shouldn't Just spotted at least three more where the notes need a full stop at the end. In essence, if you have a full stop in the middle of the notes, you need one at the end as well. You say that two different people, more than 60 years apart, are both sometimes referred to as Georgetown's "second founder" - is this correct? Yes, this is unusual, but there are reliable refs referring to both as a second founder. If I'm just speculating here, I think when people started referring to Healy as the second founder, they had forgotten that Grassi was already called the second founder. Ergo Sum 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. Just checking it wasn't some sort of copy+paste error -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Timeline diagram looks weird - why do the "blocks" jump back up to the top in 1858? I made the timeline a while ago but am not really sure it adds much to the article. Same goes for other timelines on other university president articles. I've considered scrapping it altogether. Do you think it is useful to have? The reason I made the line jump is because the purpose is to visually represent the length of time each served in office. Because there were so many presidents, one would be unable to see thee whole list if it were only vertical. Ergo Sum 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] TBH I am not sure it adds that much to the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm inclined to remove it. Perhaps HAL333 might care to weigh in? Ergo Sum 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] I would support removing it. ~ HAL333 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Removed. Ergo Sum 01:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sdkb

Comments from Sdkb I'm glad to see another college people list being put forward after my recent nom. This looks very close to being ready for support. A few comments: Some of the sentences in the last paragraph of the lead, such as for William Matthews (priest), read like caveats. These might be better if converted to {{Efn}} footnotes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've tweaked para 3 a bit so I think this has been resolved. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Looks fine. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I noticed you decided not to include {{Timeline Georgetown University presidents}}; I don't have a strong view as to whether it adds enough to be worth including or not. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I created that template a while ago but removed after discussion found above. I don't really think such tables add anything to an article and might go so far as to be a bit gimmicky. I'd ideally like to see their use not proliferate to other articles. That being said, if their occurrence becomes common on list articles, I'd consider re-adding it, but would rather like to see a community-wide discussion about them instead of an article-by-article discussion. Ergo Sum 02:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Makes sense. I can see both sides of the timeline vs. no timeline debate, so in the absence of wider consensus I'll defer to whatever your preference is. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] The "SJ" and "SS" are undefined. I'd suggest adding either {{Abbr}} or a link, at least on their first occurrence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I initially had the first use of SJ and SS linked but removed them for stylistic reasons. It looks a bit odd to me to have only one linked in the table but not others. My thought was that the meaning of SJ and SS can be gleaned by clicking on the individual's name, where the abbreviations are linked. Do you think this is inadequate? Ergo Sum 02:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see something that doesn't require readers to click through to the person's page, yeah. A link that can be previewed or abbr could work. It could be over only the first instance, or it could be over every instance, since per MOS:DUPLINK, repetition is allowed for lists, since they are expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. I tend to err on the side of more links rather than fewer, since as a reader I find underlinking much more of an impediment than overlinking, but that's somewhat just my personal stylistic preference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've added links at the first instance. Ergo Sum 03:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Many of the presidents are old enough that their images are in the public domain, so I think the visuals could be improved. You could either add a portrait column, as at President of the University of Michigan, or you could add selected portraits on the side, which would double as a way to highlight the more notable presidents. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Added images. Ergo Sum 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Looks good! The current one renders a little small since it's horizontal, so you could try cropping to make it square and see if that's better, but it's acceptable either way. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've enlarged them slightly. Ergo Sum 03:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as my concerns are addressed, and article overall looks to be in featured shape. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the timline Sdkb mentioned! I would think it's inclusion in this list could only be an improvement; List of presidents of the University of Illinois System, which is also at FLC right now, just added one as well, if that's any reassurance. Aza24 (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my related comments above. I welcome your input. Ergo Sum 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Unrelated to sources, but is there a point in putting the start and end dates in different columns? They'll sort the same regardless
  • Not really. I'll combine them into one column. Ergo Sum 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Sources

• Any identifier for Chambon, Célestin M. (1909)? OCLC, ISBN etc? (and for the other Catholic Encyclopedia refs, if possible)
  • Added OCLC. Ergo Sum 03:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

• Is there a link for ref 48? Or if not, an ISSN might be helpful
  • There are only 46 citations. But, I've double checked all the refs and they all have links except two of the Curran books, for which there is no courtesy link available, but they have ISBNs listed. Ergo Sum 03:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I was rather talking about the last citation, 45. I'm assuming it's not a web source (since there's no link) I'm just wondering if there's any additional information that can be added (an ISSN for example) to increase verifiability. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yes, the only link that I can find for that news article is in newspaper archive databases that are accessible only by subscription, which usually are not included as courtesy links. Ergo Sum 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we sure the NYT access status parameters should be different?
  • You are right. Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: have you had a chance to take a look at my responses? Ergo Sum 22:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the ping, I missed your last one, but it makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• No doubts here

Verifiability

• Spotchecks not done Aza24 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments "{ class="wikitable sortable"" should be "{ class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" to start off the main table Tables are not my forte. Is this a stylistic point or an MOS requirement? Ergo Sum 01:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I believe it's a bit of both. I know we're not supposed to be bold linking wikilinks, and all examples at WP:WHENTABLE use it. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Done. Ergo Sum 02:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps link ex officio somewhere, if appropriate. Linkedin. Ergo Sum 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] "chartered by Congress" US Congress I'm assuming? Yes, clarified. Ergo Sum 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] File:Timothy S. Healy.png: archive link is not present. Added. Ergo Sum 01:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] In the most recent president's notes: "Georgetown alumnus." is not a complete sentence so a period is not required. Per the discussion above, I've been informed that the MOS requires periods in a paragraph if punctuation is used at all. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] "white American university." perhaps "predominately white American university" as the source says. I don't believe there was actually a difference at this point in history, but I've modified it to be extra sure. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Healy notes aren't complete sentences, no need for periods. See above. Ergo Sum 01:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm seeing more generally notes section sentences using periods which really aren't sentences. Please clean up, . See above. Ergo Sum 01:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ndash needed for year range in Curran, Robert Emmett (1993). Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] The emdash for Curran, Robert Emmett (2010a) and Curran, Robert Emmett (2010b) should really be ndashes. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comments, Therapyisgood. Ergo Sum 01:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and added it myself, but keep it in mind for future FLC nominations. Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at a featured list. I've been working on this one for a few months, since finding it on the WP:BIRDS project list of articles in need of improvement, and I think it's ready. We have very few featured lists in the project (and even fewer so thoroughly sourced), and I'd like to help change that. MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick driveby comments: the table needs colspan and rowspan tags (see MOS:DTAB) for accessibility, and the images need alt text (it can be basic, e.g. "drawing of a green bird"). Also note that you seem to be recreating {{IUCN statuses}} with an infobox, which is fine but just letting you know the option is there. --PresN 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN thanks for pointing me to the IUCN statuses template; I didn't know about that one! I've added alt text for all pictures. I'm not clear on where to add the COLSPAN/ROWSPAN tags. Do I need to add those (i.e. |colspan=1 rowspan=1) for each element? Or can I do it once for the table? MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and did it as it was quicker than trying to explain (mainly because I mucked it up in the first place by saying "colspan" when I meant "colscopes", e.g. scope="col". That said, now that's done, it is strange that the first column, aka the "main" column, is the "taxon order" instead of the bird name. Taxon order just doesn't seem like the most important thing here; this may be because I don't fully understand it- it seems to just be the ordering that some list put bird genera/species in? E.g. they wrote out the tree of birds and flattened it into an excel table? I don't see how that ordering adds anything to the reader, it seems entirely arbitrary which order/family etc. was listed first, none of which is present in this table anyways. And if it's a fairly arbitrary ordering, even if helpful to bird researchers, to have, then I don't think it should be the primary column in the table even if that's what the table's default sort is. I'd expect the birds' names to be first, even if the table isn't default sorted alphabetical.

A second new point- the EBA column only has one possible value in this list (since Borneo only has one EBA), but I was surprised to see that as I expected to find the secondary EBA ids in that column too. That would make it more useful here; I'm not sure if you were just going for consistency with other lists and it's only odd because of the size of the country. --PresN 03:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, thanks for fixing the table. I'll have a look, so I know what to do in the future. As to why the list is in taxonomic order, that's standard for lists of birds. Those who are interested in birds are surely the most likely to use this list, and they're well-used to seeing things in this order; it's how all field guides are arranged, for example. Those who aren't used to this order can easily sort it by common or scientific name instead. That's why I used sortable columns. As for the EBA column, there are actually two values in the list; one of the secondary EBAs is there as well. (The other EBAs don't house species endemic only to Borneo.) I thought that readers might be interested to know which of Borneo's endemics could be found in the designated EBA(s), but if you and others think that it's extraneous information, I can certainly remove it. MeegsC (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Source 9 is probably going to cause issues because it's a Google Docs spreadsheet with no clear author. Is there another source with the same information, or is there some way to prove that this source is reliable and not just a random Google Doc? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, I've linked instead to the page that calls the spreadsheet. It shows the editors, publisher, etc. Would that be sufficient? MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better – it makes it clear who the original organization is. I'll try to do a more thorough review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, any chance you might have time to review this for me? I'd really love to know what I've done right and what needs more work. MeegsC (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting about this! To be honest, I don't have a lot of comments – this is in pretty good shape already. Just a few thoughts:

• Capitalize "The" at the start of bullet points in the section Endemic Bird Areas.
• I'm not a biology expert by any means, but what is the significance of the "Taxonomic order" column in the table?

• I've added some notes (footnote indicated in the column header) to explain why taxonomic order is included. Does that help?

• Yes, it helps a lot; I now understand why that column was included. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice if the IUCN status sorted by most to least threatened instead of alphabetically. That way, it matches the order shown in the key.
• EBA column does not sort s098 and s099 correctly; it seems to consider them as blank cells, as they are scattered throughout the blank cells instead of being sorted separately.

That's all I've got. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RunningTiger123. I just spent an interesting half hour learning all about sorting columns; I didn't know such things were possible! I think I've addressed all of your concerns.

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment "The following list is" is outdated wording. This could be a note for the first column or simply reworded into something like: "The International Ornithologists' Union provides a taxonomic order for the 56 endemic birds of Borneo based on x". That would work too. Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus I thought that was only for the lede! I've modified this to put it as a note for the Taxonomic Order column. Can you please have another look at tell me if this suffices? MeegsC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments "montane birds could move lower" - is there a wikilink that could cover what a "montane bird" is (because I have no idea, personally)? I've changed this to "so montane birds (those generally restricted to the slopes of mountains) could move lower"... Does that work? " The vulnerable grey imperial pigeon" - is there a way to break up this sea of blue? At first glance I thought "vulnerable" was part of the species name I've changed this to "The grey imperial pigeon, which the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers to be a vulnerable species, is found on a dozen or so of the islands" Does that make it clearer? "Hill dipterocarp forest" - link to explain this (seemingly) rather technical term? I've linked dipterocarp. Is that enough? Or does it need further explanation? These trees are a hugely important part of the Bornean plant community. "particularly bamboo grovesLowland" - seems to be some punctuation and spacing missing here Actually the "Lowland" bit got pasted in by mistake with a reference. Thanks for catching it! Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] ChrisTheDude, thanks for the review! Do these fixes address your concerns? MeegsC (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, I was asked by another reviewer to add information about the threats Bornean endemics face, and then to break the (now too large) former lede into several text sections. Do the changes I've made still meet with your approval? MeegsC (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, still looks OK to me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in good shape. I'm struck by how few photographs there are - even for some species that are of Least Concern and presumably relatively common.

• Why are 5 secondary EBAs described in detail in the EBA section of the article when only one (s098) is mentioned in the table?

  Secondary EBAs include those which contain a single endemic species, or species whose ranges are not entirely restricted to that area. Three of the five secondary EBAs found in Borneo fall into the latter category. The species found on those islands are also found on several Philippine islands, so aren't endemic to Borneo. But those EBAs qualify as "belonging" to Borneo. I did realise that I forgot to mark s099 for the black-browed babbler though, so thanks for that!

• Links are needed for Borneo peat swamp forests and Kerangas forest. I notice that in the article peatswamp is written as one word but the use of two separate words appears to be more common. Wiki also has an article peat swamp forests.

  Linked those two and changed the spelling of peatswamp (though both the field guides used as refs use a single word there!).

• The threats to these endemic forest species and the loss of habitat should be mentioned in the article. Some of the lowlands are being deforested - I notice that there is a wiki article Deforestation in Borneo. Are the montane species less threatened? Are some of the larger species also hunted for food? These articles may be useful:
  • Curran, L.M.; Trigg, S.N.; McDonald, A.K.; Astiani, D.; Hardiono, Y.M.; Siregar, P.; Caniago, I.; Kasischke, E. (2004). "Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo". Science. 303 (5660): 1000–1003. doi:10.1126/science.1091714. PMID 14963327.
  • Helms, J.A.; Woerner, C.R.; Fawzi, N.I.; MacDonald, A.; Juliansyah; Pohnan, E.; Webb, K. (2018). "Rapid response of bird communities to small-scale reforestation in Indonesian Borneo". Tropical Conservation Science. 11: 1940082918769460. doi:10.1177/1940082918769460.
  • Phillips, Victor D. (1998). "Peatswamp ecology and sustainable development in Borneo". Biodiversity & Conservation. 7 (5): 651–671. doi:10.1023/A:1008808519096.

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AA77zz, I've added a bit about deforestation and palm oil plantations—by far the biggest threats to Borneo's endemics—and linked to the Deforestation in Borneo article. Hunting isn't a major problem. Trapping for the caged-bird trade is definitely a problem for some of Borneo's birds, but not its endemics. Can you take a look and see if I've fixed everything you pointed out? MeegsC (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The additions looks good. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first 4 paragraphs of the article form a wall of text that is too long and detailed to act as a lead to the article. (a lead is specified in the Featured list criteria). I suggest you add a short lead and then break up the existing text with headers. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, I've created a shorter lede and broken the former lede into a couple of text sections. Does this meet with your approval? MeegsC (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nicely done. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of works that reached number one on the US Top Holiday Albums chart in the 2010s decade. I have noticed that there are several other Billboard-related featured list candidates, and I am hoping to bring this one along too. I am the primary contributor to the list and it could become my sixth featured list if given support. I welcome all suggestions and feedback. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comments

• It might seem obvious but it might be worth stating in the lead that the chart is specifically for Christmas-themed albums, in case anyone thinks it's simply for the biggest-selling albums during the Christmas period (which could be any album)
• "Other musicians, like Blake Shelton,.....,amongst others" - any particular reason for singling out these seven? I'd be tempted to scrap this sentence entirely and replace it with a brief comment on how many of these albums were actually the biggest-selling album in the country at the time and therefore also topped the Billboard 200. I know the Susan Boyle album did, but I don't think many of the others did. You could also mention some/all of the albums which also topped genre charts e.g. the Duck Dynasty one (somehow) also topped the country albums chart.........
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude – thank you for posting some comments so quickly. I have made edits to the list based upon your suggestions above. Let me know how it looks now, and thanks again. Carbrera (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisTheDude – thank you for the support. Would you mind commenting on the notability issue? Carbrera (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Although the topic is not notable at all, this should be presented more like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, with only a new line when a different album reaches number one. There is zero need to have 9 or 10 lines for one album. Just indicate the number of weeks on the right in another column. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I revised the table. It is not exactly like the list you suggested, partly due to the difficulty I had in attempting to convey that many albums reappear on the holiday charts every year (specifically Christmas by Michael Bublé and the first 2 Pentatonix releases), but I tried my best in making them similar. What do you think of it, now? Carbrera (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• The lead is kind of fragmented. Why are some albums given specific sales figures, and why some aren't? Is it necessary to mention some artists' popularity/relevance during the holiday season (I could get it for Mariah Carey somewhat)? Some data are backed up by Billboard chart history of certain artists, which I am quite concerned whether it is a case of OR (i.e. returned to the top spot in 2016 after previously reaching it in 1998; I'd include a release year instead). I understand that as this is a decade-focused list, the lead may be particularly challenging to be engaging. I hope some of my comments help (and ping me when you've revised the lead). For the table, I concur with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as above. HĐ (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ – What do you think of the lead and table now? Carbrera (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I have some remaining comments--

• best-selling Christmas and holiday albums Isn't "Christmas album" and "holiday album" synonymous?
• I still think Phil Robertson's homophobic remarks unnecessary.
• Forbes is not entirely reliable per WP:RSP.
• Center-aligning the ref. column would be great.
• Other than that I am happy to support this FLC. I believe my comments are trivial and feasible. HĐ (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ – I settled on just "holiday albums", removed Robertson's remarks, and center-aligned the Ref. column. I can still remove Forbes if you feel it is unreliable, but I only kept it because the author of the article appears to have written for several other publications that were deemed reliable at RSP. (see [13]). Carbrera (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I am still not confident in this author's credentials. He claimed himself to be a "freelance writer". At RSP for Forbes it says that it discourages "contributors" and only considers staff writers as reliable. This author is sorted as a "contributor". But I'll leave it up to the source reviewer--HĐ (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I disagree with the edits made at Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's suggestion. It is now unclear when albums return to the charts after leaving the top spot. For instance, Lady Antebellum's A Merry Little Christmas entered the top spot on October 30, 2010, for two weeks, but the next album listed is from November 20, 2010, which is three weeks later. It takes a lot of undue digging to realize that The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection snuck in there for a week. As I see it, there are two options: return to the original formatting (which I personally see no issue with), or restate an album every time it reappears in the chart. In the latter case, the number of weeks would refer to the number of consecutive weeks it was at number one during that run. So, for example, 2010 would have 2 weeks for My Christmas, 1 week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, 2 weeks for Celtic Thunder: Christmas, 2 weeks for A Merry Little Christmas, and then 1 more week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection.

Other comments:

• Remove bold text in lead (MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD).
• Do not use column headers in the middle of the table to separate by year; this causes accessibility issues and sorting issues.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point in how the chart is seasonal that an album returning to number one in December 2010 then again in December 2011. I prefer this layout, however, and List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s provides a way of showing returning number ones in a way you suggest. There's still a major concern about notability of the chart itself and this list, failing criteria 3c (it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, including WP:NLIST). None of the non-Billboard sources listed mention this chart and List of Billboard Holiday 100 number-one songs was deleted at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I do not share your same concern. If it is a matter of finding sources that refer to the chart, I have come across many in my research and can incorporate more into the article if necessary. The Forbes source I recently added to the list is one of them. Personally, I don't believe the other holiday chart is relevant to this discussion. The Top Holiday Albums chart has been around for decades, whereas the Holiday 100 has existed for less than 10 years according to the linked discussion. Carbrera (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I also share the same concern with RunningTiger123. The List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s contains the same accessibility issue that was mentioned above, whereas the original layout I used does not. Switching to the format style on the UK list would require that each album be numbered in the table, which I don't know if I find very necessary. Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I think that the example provided by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars works well. It's possible to simply exclude the "No." column while repeating entries that charted at separate times. As to criterion #3c... Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right in that the only non-Billboard source that actually mentions the Top Holiday Albums charts (at least that I could find) is the Forbes article, and that's tangential at best. However, since Billboard is established as a major record chart producer, I don't know that we have to find standalone sources for this specific chart. It's like the numerous pages in Category:Primetime Emmy Awards; many don't have third-party sources to back them up, but since the Emmys are the most prestigious award in American television, it isn't necessary to establish notability for each individual category. They're notable because they're Emmys and the Emmys in general are notable; maybe the same applies to Billboard charts. If he doesn't mind, I'd like to ping @ChrisTheDude on this, since he's worked a lot on country charts and probably has a better understanding of chart notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the chart's appearance, I can agree to that. I will begin making edits to the list. Thanks for your suggestions so far. Carbrera (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, RunningTiger123 – Apologies for not pinging sooner but I recently changed the table's appearance. Thoughts? Carbrera (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that looks a lot better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (assuming that any issues with criteria #3c are resolved) – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the table in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption), which can be inside of an {{sronly}} template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and added it myself, but keep it in mind for future FLC nominations. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about the discography of Lana Del Rey, known by her admirers as one of the greatest living American songwriters, and by her detractors as one of the causes of Generation Z's glorification of depression. Whichever she is, you could listen to her music and have your own judgement. I have removed OR, unsourced, and unreleased songs from this list, and for now, I think it meets the FL criteria for being comprehensive and well sourced.

While I acknowledge I am having another FLC for MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, since the FLC has gotten two supports, I feel like nominating this for FLC would not be against the advice. Any comment is very much appreciated. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Outside of my normal grumbling about the use of streaming services as a source, the sourcing is impeccable --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

• "....and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games", under her current stage name Lana Del Rey" - it would be more succinct to simply say "and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray, a stage name she has retained ever since.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games"."
  • Ignore the above, I hadn't noticed the ever-so-slightly different spelling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it is hard to notice firsthand. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "The single was certified multi-platinum platinum" - spot the stray word :-)
  • Removed. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Lust for Life" (featuring The Weeknd)" - wikilink The Weeknd
  • Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Del Rey released her sixth studio album, Norman Fucking Rockwell!, in 2019. Norman Fucking Rockwell! peaked atop" - is there a way to not repeat the album title twice in such quick succession?
  • Changed to "the album". HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Will look at the tables later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to add on the tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your comments. HĐ (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add ALT text for the infobox image.

• Done, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph? Something like As of August 2019, her albums have sold 3.2 million copies in the U.S. and her single sales in the U.K. have reached 5.2. million? I am recommending this as a way to avoid the repetition of the 2019 part, and that way you can clarify the U.K. single sales were also as of August 2019.

• Revised, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This part, Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after, seems incomplete to me. I know what the sentence means, but I am not certain if it is grammatically correct to end a sentence with the word "after", particularly in this manner.

• Reworded, but I'm not very confident with the new wording... HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would mention Violet Bent Backwards over the Grass in the lead.

• Added. Good catch. HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On a similar note, should anything related to Chemtrails over the Country Club be mentioned in the lead?

• I think it is better to wait till the official release, cue WP:CRYSTALBALL, HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the list. I find your first comment to be interesting. I used to love Lana Del Rey (and she is still a huge influence on me), but for me at least, I became more critical of her after some questionable behavior, like that mask nonsense and not the "Generation Z's glorification of depression". But that's just me. I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of her as a "glorification of depression" is somewhat subjective and limited to her early releases only (I mean, look at the title of Born to Die... which was very provocative to me). I remember people around me describing her as "emo queen" or "sad pop queen" lol. But after 2015's "Lust for Life", I guess critics have appreciated her artistry more. I particularly enjoy her Ultraviolence songs and some songs off her newest album. Her mask thing was, however, quite a total turn-off for me at least (but I guess I'd have to "separate the artist and the art" if I want to listen to her music lol). Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Hope you have a great week ahead also! HĐ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the prompt responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support, @Aoba47:. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate a lot if you could comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year/archive1. It's a rather short list so I believe it wouldn't take up a lot of time :P HĐ (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will look through the FLC later this week if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I made a few edits to the list regarding captions and updating a few reference access-dates. Outside of that, I believe this FLC satisfies the featured list criteria. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. HĐ (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ref numbers as of this version; not all comments are necessarily about sources.)

• "Lana Del Ray has been pulled from music stores." – Raises more questions than it answers. Mention why as briefly as possible, or drop.

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Zobbel.de reliable—what are its authors credentials and what's its editorial process? Same questions for Charts in France and Aficia.

• I believe Zobble.de, as explained at WP:BADCHARTS, is licensed by the Official Charts Company-licensed Hit Music magazine. I am finding information on Charts in France and Aficia. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I am not very certain, but I think "Charts in France" monitors radio plays/internet hits, a-la-All-Access [15]. Cannot find much about Aficia, but from my experience with Taylor Swift articles, it was used to promote certain songs to radio by record labels [16]. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Recorded Music NZ can be linked in ref #86; Dazed can be linked in ref #72.

• Linked. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the rule for whether the chart is linked in Footnotes? If it's to link on first occurrence only then I think a link to Billboard Hot 100 is missing.

• I link the charts on first instance. Added the link to the Hot 100. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "WW" is not immediately obvious, so WW would be good on the first mention. Maybe also FRA as that's not a universal abbreviation of the country name (unlike UK and US).

• Added. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The figures 1,174,000 and 1,608,000 are to four significant figures, which I think is likely false precision. Even the three significant figures numbers given the date of one of the sources in particular might be too much. I would prefer two significant figures (e.g. 1,170,000 and 1,600,000).

• Done. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotchecks: 14, 23, 27, 43, 63, 75, 78, 82, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 122. #23 doesn't seem to cite the singles "As lead artist" table—I can change the search to "Song" to get some of them but not e.g. "Video Games" and "Summertime Sadness". (I can eventually navigate to e.g. [17] and [18] but can this links be given directly?). I don't think ref #107 takes me to where it should (https://www.irma.ie/#chartTab1 isn't "Irish Charts Week Ending 6 Sep 2019 Top 100"). Ref #109 says it's from 2012 but it doesn't say the song comes from Born to Die, does it?

• Fixed the Swiss chart link. I also replaced all Irish chart with the Hung Medien-powered site. I hope everything is okay now.

Looking very good overall. Couldn't find a wrong figure anywhere. — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the source review. HĐ (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the responses to all of the above. Fixed one typo here and I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Found it a smooth read and I think it satisfies WP:FLCR.--NØ 13:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now support the nomination. Just replace certifications with some chart peaks and it'll be good. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC) [19].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mario franchise capitalized on the success of the role-playing video game genre in the 1990s, releasing Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Paper Mario. Both series received critical acclaim, so why not keep going? Paper Mario proceeded to receive two more releases, with a new series, Mario & Luigi, being started for Nintendo's handheld consoles. However, these two series met a decline in the 2010s; Paper Mario started evolving to the action-adventure genre, and everybody hated it; the recent Mario & Luigi games saw less positive reception, and the developers, AlphaDream, went bankrupt in 2019.

Despite this, I'm still attempting to promote this list to FL; I recently had a peer review and further guidance from Alexandra IDV. Panini^🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am supporting this! Not many problems, as I can see. No duplicate links, which is always an awesome thing. I do have some comments though; I think I missed these on the PR.

• "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though newer installments in the series, since Sticker Star, also incorporate action-adventure elements." Errr. Maybe change it to "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though installments in the series since Sticker Star also incorporate action-adventure elements."
• "...but changes to gameplay has received mixed reception between games, such as in combat and use of gimmicks." --> "...but changes to gameplay, such as in combat and use of gimmicks, has received mixed reception."

GeraldWL 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both have been fixed. Thanks for your support! Panini^🥪 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At 1.6 k, the leade is a bit short. Can you flesh it out some more.
• I'm not a fan of how much information is thrust into each cell.
  • Release years by system should be its own sortable column
  • Title should be sortable as well
• Visually, this looks like a bear for screen readers. Is {{Video game titles}} WP:ACESS compliant?
• "iQue Ltd" is not the page title
• You sometimes translate and sometimes don't translate article titles into English
• I don't see any quality problems with the sourcing

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not my nomination, but responding to the points about the formatting and accessibility (not the content)-- this is the standard format for this type of list, which the FLC delegate PresN brought up in his "How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games" as accessibility-compliant. PresN, can you give input on this?--Alexandra^IDV 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did write that guide almost 6 years ago, but yeah. To the best of my knowledge, this template format is ACCESS-compliant (feel free to double-check with them though!); it's just a wikitable behind the scenes, with col/row-scopes. I know the template format isn't every editor's favorite, but I've personally used it in... looks like 10 FLs? Latest was promoted in April 2019? And there are several by other people as well who've used it. Sortability is not a requirement for FL tables where it doesn't give benefit to the reader, and in lists like this it's not at all needed: each table is a video game subseries, presented in the order they were created (and not too long). There's no benefit to the reader to give the option to sort by alphabetical title instead of production order, any more than there would be in a table of television show episodes. --PresN 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(All ref numbers as of this permalink. Also some comments not specifically about sources.) How can I know that this list is exhaustive—is there some source that lists them all? I notice Template:Mario role-playing games includes Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but this list doesn't. "Immediately received negative reception following its announcement" – I'm not happy with an article written so soon after the trailer being the only basis for the claim here (I know there's more at Paper Mario: Color Splash). At least add another reference or two, but I might change it to "Despite negative fan reaction prior to release, the game received mostly positive critical reception" or otherwise rewrite the point to explain what specifically about the pre-release fan reaction was unprecedented (they petitioned for it to be cancelled?). Rewritten and added another source. "Believed to have taken inspiration from Paper Mario" – Believed by whom? This would need attribution at the least (e.g. "Some critics found...") but I don't think the sources are good enough. #59 is a fan-made walkthrough, it looks like, so not reliable (see WP:UGC). #60 doesn't say that, so far as I can see. And then we've got "The battle engine is very, very similar to Paper Mario" in #61, which is not the same thing. I simply removed this claim altogether, and I plan to remove similar claims like it. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is missing an NA release date. Added, don't know how I missed that. If the Mario and Luigi logo is public domain (not original enough) then surely Paper Mario is too? I think it's plausible both are PD but it could be neither—maybe somebody else can speak to which is the case. If you look real close, the Paper Mario logo has a paper texture which I believe is enough to make it complex. Who knows? Ref #6: Cubed3 and RPGamer look like fan blogs or amateur review sites at first glance. Is that right? In the Cubed3 case you might be better citing Famitsu directly, but I'm not actually sure how either Famitsu or RPGamer support the claim that critics found later games gimmicky. Removed the claim altogether. Sometimes we benefit by forgetting. Ref #3 needs the second work (GameSpy) to be named. Same with ref #79 (GameSpot). Lots of small reference formatting inconsistencies—take a look from top to bottom. Examples include Metacritic (inconsistent in whether to use italics; I think it shouldn't); GameSpot.com occurring rather than GameSpot; and works/publishers being inconsistently linked/unlinked (do either on every occurrence or the first occurrence only). Not clear what the difference is between things like nintendo.co.jp vs Joystiq. More often than not I think the things not in italics should be. Spotchecks: refs 2, 13, 28, 51, 54, 65, 66, 74, 86, 89. #28 doesn't say The Origami King's JP release date. Can't see that #51 says [Color Splash was] First Paper Mario game in high definition. #54 doesn't mention coronavirus delaying the game. A nice read, but still some tidying up to do. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Added Famitsu source. Changed the source. Removed the claim.

Bilorv, I believe I fixed these concerns. Do you spot any other formatting inconsistencies that I didn't? Additionally, although I've considered adding Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but it's more of a compilation game with more rather than a unique game. I believe it's part of the navbox because it is still an RPG will Mario elements in it. Nintendo did not develop the game, they only blended their property. Panini^🥪 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check now if the rest of the fixes are good but there's still the first point left to reply to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explained myself above. Panini^🥪 12:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to see how Puzzle & Dragons Z doesn't fit the scope of the list as established by the first sentence: The Mario franchise, which originated as platform games, has inspired a variety of role-playing video games (RPGs) released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. Nintendo console, has RPG elements and features Mario, right? Two more things: I didn't mean that you have to link every work always, just works which have articles (I see that this was ambiguous), so Nintendo World Report, RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online and Video Game Music Database can be unlinked, or kept as redlinks if you think they're notable; and I'm not seeing that "First Paper Mario game in high definition" is verified by the new source either. Rest of the changes look good. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, Added it in, fixed the changes, left Nintendo World Report linked as it has a chance of being notable. 13:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright great, happy to support now that these have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "which originated as platform games," this just doesn't seem right to me, perhaps "originated as a series of platform games" or "had its origins in platform games"?

• Changed.

• You abbreviate RPG and then don't use it.

• Removed.

• Is there a decent link for "crossover"?

  Linked.

• "Most games in the series ..." the links really only reflect a handful of those in the entire list so saying "most" here is a stretch with the current referencing.

  Changed.

• "two characters that have grown a cult following." unreferenced.

• Looks like somebody added that in when I wasn't looking. Removed.

• "a two disk soundtrack" hyphenate two-disk.

• Done.

• Check that all online refs have access dates (to be consistent) e.g. 22, 23, 55.

  Should be done.

• "after licensing rights were revealed" is "revealed" correct here? Do you mean "arranged" or "organised" or something?

• I don't think so, Nintendo later showed the public when the lawsuit began that the rights exist.

• "for the GBA" what's that?

• Fixed.

• Ref 14, 16, both have spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.

  Fixed.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I have addressed your concerns. Panini^🥪 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, probably missed my last ping so just checking to make sure. Panini^🥪 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follows" => "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follow" (subject is plural)

  Fixed

• "the first game being Paper Mario and was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" => "the first game being Paper Mario which was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000"

  Changed

• "The Paper Mario series is developed......The Mario & Luigi series was developed" - any reason for the difference in tense?

  Yes, actually; the Paper Mario series is healthy and still kicking, while the Mario & Luigi series was developed by AlphaDream which went bankrupt in 2019.

  That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The series has generally received critical acclaim,[6] being praised for their writing" - singular/plural disagreement

  Fixed

• Notes like "Developed by Square." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops (looks like this applies to almost all the notes, in fact)
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, that should take care of it. Panini^🥪 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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