Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2022

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Timothée Chalamet is a critically acclaimed actor that has garnered numerous accolades and I believe this list meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar in quality to other actors' accolades lists. Look forward to your comments! Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Refs after 1939 are not in the correct order
• None of the notes are full sentences, so they don't need full stops
• When you sort the Result column, it goes Winner > Runner-up > Nominated > 15th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd. If winner is the "top" outcome then surely 2nd should rank higher than 3rd, 3rd higher than 4th, etc?
• Critics' Choice Movie Awards 2021 row has the columns the wrong way round
• That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed your comments. For the results column sorting, it is sorting based on the label itself and not the order of importance so makes sense how it is sorting with the 2nd–15th places grouped together at the top in ascending sort while runner-up and won are at the bottom. - Brojam (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, let's see what other editors think. IMO if a column contains data of this type then it should sort essentially from top to bottom in terms of how close the person came to winning, so coming 2nd would be closer to winning than 15th, not further away, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Following TRM's similar comments, I've modified the results column sorting so that all the runner-ups and ranked places are together. - Brojam (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It still seems odd to me that it sorts Won > Nominated > Runner-up, implying that being nominated is "closer" to winning than being runner-up, but it seems that nobody else has an issue with it so I guess I may as well support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made a small tweak to the years, but everything else looks good to go! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "actor Timothée Chalamet has " maybe put (born X) so we have a context for his generation.
  • Added. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "autobiographical play Prodigal" any chance of noting where that was performed?
  • Added. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems odd when sorting by the Result column that numerical placings are separated from Runner-up by "nominated"...!
  • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much else to grumble about here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Ann Santos is a Filipino actress whose career started as a child, and appeared in a starring role on a TV series at age 10. In the last three decades, she has enjoyed success in independent films and blockbusters, as well as multiple lead roles in soap operas/TV series. The late 80s to the early 90s (considered to be the golden era of Philippine cinema) saw her appear in numerous films each year, while concurrently doing television shows. I think her work is worthy of the bronze star so I am nominating this article for featured list.

In the past few days, I re-worked the existing page. I’ve added a substantive lead, fixed the tables, and included citations. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since information dating back in the 80s and 90s has been a challenge to find, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review — pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fantastic work on this article! My only comment is that if the article is a Filmography, then the Discography and Bibliography sections don't really belong IMO, as those aren't subsets of "a listing of motion pictures by actor, director, genre, etc.". They would fit perfectly on her own article but I don't think they belong here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude! Agreed, while also not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FL-class filmographies (e.g. List of Kate Winslet performances, List of Emily Blunt performances, List of Emma Stone performances), but then again they are named as "list of subject's performances", so I concur that filmographies (e.g. Matt Damon filmography) be in accordance to the above definition :) I have removed the subsets which can just be added on the subject's main article. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For this sentence, The show became the longest running Filipino television series at that time., do you think it would be beneficial to be more specific with the dates (i.e. when it was no longer the longest running Filipino television show)? It is likely irrelevant to this list, but the "at that time" phrasing did make me question the timing. Maybe something like, The show was one of the longest running Filipino television series., would avoid that?

• That was actually my initial phrasing/structure, which was to include the show that surpassed the record, but found it's mention irrelevant which I agree with you, and this only happened in 2020, so it was quite a longstanding record. I've followed your latter suggestion.

• For this part, and the namesake anthology series, I would drop namesake. I know what you mean by this word choice, but it reads awkwardly to me and it is not entirely necessary as the reader already knows she is the lead in this show by context.

• Done

• The "while" transition for this part, while she received a Star Award for Best Actress, does not really make sense in this context. This is a viable transition, but "while" is used either to describe multiple events occurring at the same time or to indicate contrasting ideas. I would use a different transition.

• I have reworded and clustered all the roles, adding the award for the latter as separate sentence.

• Since almost every sentence has a citation, I would also include one for this sentence, The following year, she reprised her role in the sequel Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo (2007)., for consistency. I know that this information is supported by the table and the citation there, but it looks odd to have one sentence without a citation in my opinion.

• Added

• I believe this part, high-profile directors', should be high-profile directors's as other instances in the list use s's and not s'. I do not have a strong preference either way, but I would be consistent with one choice or the other.

• You're right, fixed to be consistent. I was unsure as to whether I should or should not, as I've only been using it for proper nouns.

• I am a little confused by the departure from playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" as I would imagine an abused wife would also fall into this category. Could you clarify this for me? This source makes it seems like she is more so playing against her more wholesome image.

• I did want to highlight her shift from being type casted, so I included that phrasing. I do realize that it in context, including the word "abused" would still fall into that description, however, I did want to emphasize the part where she sought revenge, as the abused wife role was the character's foundation from the initial episodes, while the core of the show explored the latter strong-willed character who learned how to do krav maga, (loosely based on the film Enough by Jennifer Lopez :-D). As for the latter source, further down the article it does mention that "the character is very dark ... the hatred and pain in her heart are fueling her need to wreak havoc as a way to avenge her mother." Classic 'antihero' qualities for a lead character. Sorry this got too lengthy.

• @Pseud 14: Thank you for the response. On a somewhat related note, I actually really enjoyed Enough, and I think it is a solid example of how under-rated Jennifer Lopez is as an actress. Anyway, I am still confused by this part. As I have already said above, one of the articles says that Santos was type-cast with a more wholesome image and it looks like that both of these roles are leaning more into playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" rather than going against it as the list currently says. The citation in question even says that Santos is exploring "her dark side" in the title so again to seems like she is shifting more from wholesome roles to darker, edgier roles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have completely removed the phrasing instead in order to avoid confusion. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the list as always. You have done a wonderful job with succinctly providing an overview of her acting career. I have honestly never heard of this individual before, and I very much enjoyed reading about her. Once all of my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for providing your review and commentaries, I have addressed all points you raised, including a not-so-brief but hopefully clarifying rationale for the last point. Let me know if these are satisfactory or if there are things that remain unaddressed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pseud 14: Thank you for the responses. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: much appreciate your support. I intended to do a review of your FAC at some point this week, you just beat me to reviewing my FLC first. I'll be happy to have a look, I saw Frankie put in a place holder as well, so I'll be on board when his is complete so I don't overlap. Hope your week is going well too! Congrats on your new job! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have many comments as this is a great list :)

• The "row" scope needs to be in the first column for year per MOS:DTAB

Fixed

• I would take the "center" style out of the year as that's not common for year to be centered plus it's not a wide enough column to make a big difference

Fixed

• There need to be sorts with last name first - example Angelina Kalinisan Orteza needs to have the sort under Orteza.

Fixed

• "several high-profile directors' projects" - what makes them high-profile? ref to back the "high profile" part?

I've added references to support her work with these directors.

• "The show became one of the longest running Filipino television series" - maybe add how long is ran for or the year span it ran.

Added year to clarify

• "Santos's film roles have also garnered praise from critics." - what critics and what films, refs to back?

The succeeding films after the above sentence were the intended reference that received notable praise and recognition (Sabel and Kasal, Kasali, Kasalo), so I've placed/added the citations after each films to support it (e.g. reviews, coverage)

Great work :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: thank you for your review. I have addressed the above points raised. Do let me know if there's anything else I may have missed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - lovely list :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: much appreciate your support! Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Scope row - year vs. Scope title - filmographies, discographies. I wanted a second opinion before I posted here. Please either move the year to the second unscoped column, or move the Scoperow to the title in the second column. For someone using a screen reader, it would seem the film titles are the important column. I've actually gone through some of my old lists and moved the Scope Row to the second column where I had the film titles, but I never took those through FLC.— Maile (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: could you confirm that this version is what you meant? This was originally how I sorted my tables, but at the advice/comments above per MOS:DTAB, it should have been otherwise. I would like some clarity before having to do the changes again. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Yes, I think that would take care of the issue. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: should be fixed now. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good job on both the scope, and the list overall. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few days, I completely re-worked this list, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. The list illustrates that even politicians can be "most admired" people (they are!) My other FLC, List of operettas by John Philip Sousa has two supports, no oppose, and a reasonable time has passed. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The most glaring problem I see is that the two women who are singled out at the top for the most appearances, Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are only described by the article as first ladies. Yes, they were that, but they were/are so much more. Roosevelt became world-famous for her role in the United Nations, on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for her presence in civil rights and women's rights in general. Indeed, all of Roosevelt's appearances on this list come after her time as first lady had ended. As for Clinton, she has been no normal first lady either, having been a twice-elected U.S. Senator, a U.S. Secretary of State, and a two-time presidential candidate, once getting a major party nomination. And the majority of her appearances on the list have come after her time as first lady ended. The article needs to give the information necessary for readers to understand why these two have the most appearances.
  • I agree, and I have added some context. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The layout, with the large image sizes, may lead to false visual clues about comparative frequency of appearance. For instance, the blocks for JFK and LBJ are the same size, even though one was on the list two times and the other four times. And the block for Pat Nixon is also the same size, and she was only on the list once.
  • How does this version look? I made all the blocks equal in size, so it fixes the issue you mention. However, I am concerned about the large empty space in the Hillary Clinton column. Nevertheless, it all fixes once you sort the table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2020, 11% chose a male friend or relative and 16% chose a female friend ... – I think these should be written as 'percent' not '%'.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That no poll was conducted in 2021 is stated twice.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Trump has been the most recent most admired man, and Michelle Obama has been the most admired woman. – I don't see the value in including this, especially since the 'honor' is currently vacant.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As an aside, I have the feeling that Gallup may have given up on this somewhat dubious enterprise, and that's why no list appeared for 2021. We will see. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope so ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for the comments. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Those changes all look okay. But another big issue to me is that the article should have more analysis regarding the significance (or lack thereof) of this poll. I only see three sources – fns 4, 6, 14 – that might fit that bill, and they don't seem to be used much. The large majority of the sources are from December/January/February of whatever year and are just reporting on who was named in the poll. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, @Wasted Time R: Aside from the sources you mention, there are many other sources which are present in the lead that discuss not just the winner, but other statistics and impact of the polls. I think the article provides well context to a non-expert reader about the stats and significance of the poll. Is there any particular source which you want me to incorporate, because I wasn't able to find anything better than all that is in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we're on the same wavelength here – there is a difference between the statistics of the poll and whether the polls have actually meant anything in practice – but I will drop the point and Support. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support and your review, and all your previous work on the article!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama both have been" => "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama have both been"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Queen Elizabeth II with 52 till 2020" - I think the last two word are redundant
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Although never winning" => "Despite never winning"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Oprah Winfrey has finished in the top-10 a total of 33 times till 2020" - again, last two words not needed
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "including finishing the second 14 times" => "including finishing second 14 times"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got on a first pass. Interesting to see that the president is always so admired. I strongly suspect that if such a poll existed in my country (the UK) the incumbent Prime Minister would very rarely be the most admired person ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, British politics, you know! Rest, all comments resolved, @ChrisTheDude! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I just clarify - when you say Among women, the poll has shown Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton as the first ladies with the most appearances on the list., are you saying that they have appeared in the top 10 more than any other first lady? Appeared in the top 10 more than any other woman at all? They seem to be the two women who have appeared at number one more than any other, so maybe just focus on that? Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is what I intended to write (for 1st position, not top 10). Regardless, Queen has been on top-10 list 52 times, more that Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt combined, so the current statement is factually misleading. Fixed now. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant is, if they are the two women with the most appearances at number one, then just say "Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton are the women with most appearances as the most admired woman" (or something better worded than that), because saying they are the "first ladies with most appearances" makes it sound like there is also someone who wasn't first lady with more appearances. Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I though of this earlier and was reluctant for "most appearances as the most admired woman" because of the repetition. I now changed it to "Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton are the women having top two appearances as the most admired woman". Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworded that section a bit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks! The wording is fine! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It may just be me, but I find the "Most years the" construction informal and would prefer a different wording, maybe something like "In most years" with "has been" in place of "is".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "While the top of the list is often predictable, scholars have found appearances further down in the top ten to be illuminating; in 1958, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, a segregationist, appeared on the list in the wake of the Little Rock Nine civil rights episode." This is quite long thanks to the semicolon; I would recommend splitting this into two sentences, with a "For example," or similar in between.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph interleaves information about the top-10 and those about the winners seemingly randomly; I'd recommend consolidating them (like how the third paragraph has info on #1 and then statistics for the rest of the top 10 after).
  • Similar to para 3, para 2 has stats about top-10 and discusses about the winner. I am not sure if I'm getting your point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "A portion of those surveyed choose a friend or relative instead of a public figure" - is the present tense intended?
  • No; fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The screen reader table caption, "List of winners of the Gallup's most admired man and woman poll", should not have a "the"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, if it was "most admired person", shouldn't the columns for 1946/1947 be consolidated? Though I understand that would make the table headers very confusing and possibly break sorting, so it's not a big deal.
  • I'd rather not do that, due to sorting issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it interesting that some of the sources, like [66], [67], and [81], note the sample size of just over 1000, while [79] notes one of 824. Is there any information on sample sizes over the years or the methodology in general?
  • Only thing I found is this, which has an analysis of this poll, but they don't state anything major about the sample size. So I don't feel comfortable writing that the sample size of just over 1000 based on 2-3 references. Moreover, that is how most of theGallup polls are conducted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing review: (for ref numbers, Special:Permalink/1075046351)

• I'm slightly confused about the sourcing, because [12] does cover thet entire table, so I assume it's only used as a fallback for the few rows that don't have any contemporary/secondary sources/sources that show the top 10? But [52] is not a contemporary source, several sources don't have all of the top 10, and the many clippings written by Gallup aren't secondary.
  • Yes, Ref#12 is only used where I wasn't able to find good sources. As for the concern about other primary sources, I don't think that is an issue. FA criteria requires source to be "high quality reliable sources". But our FL criteria just requires "statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." Moreover, we have entire featured topic which uses Billboard for Billboard lists. We use IUCN in IUCN lists. So Gallup for Gallup shouldn't be an issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of, while the results for 2019 are tied to the nearest percent, the official site in [12] lists Barack Obama as the winner based on the number of mentions while "next highest had similar percentage" (as opposed to Mother Teresa/Rosalynn Carter where it writes both). I think this is worth mentioning in a footnote.
  • This states that they were tied. If I follow the approach based on statistical tie, there would be a lot of people falling in that category. Gallup has always name 1 person as "most admired man/woman", thus I have listed that one. In 2019, however, the official site and secondary sources call them both to have tied. Moreover, on Talk:Gallup's most admired man and woman poll#'Statistical ties' misunderstood, there was a huge debate 9 years ago on the same matter. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The scan on [28] is bad and almost unreadable, but oh well.
  • Do you have access to Newspapers.com through WP:TWL? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [29], [39], [41], [42], [44] are also authored by George Gallup. The other ones likely are too (e.g. Princeton reporting location for several) but it's not listed explicitly.
  • Listed him in all these sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Was there any reason you could find that 1967 didn't have a most admired woman poll? The source gives no insight.
  • See Ref#12 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, [33] doesn't explicitly say it was 1968, but there's nothing else it could be, so it's fine.
  • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [40] doesn't back up the most admired woman poll for that yaer - I'm not even sure it backs up the most admired man poll because the clipping is from December 13, 1975 and Gallup's announcements for the ones before all seem to have been a few weeks later than that time of year, so the latest results might still have been from 1974.
  • Replaced by Ref#12. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like [50] also backs up 1988 (in place of [51] and [52], the latter of which I mentioned above).
  • Maybe, but even Ref#51 and Ref#52 cite 1988. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [56], [57], [63] refer to a CNN-USA Today poll, is that the same as Gallup? (I note that some other sources say all 3 of CNN/USA Today/Gallup, but find it odd that these don't..probably doesn't matter at all) [58] also does not mention a polling organization at all. (I realize that a lot of these complaints are just technicalities as the info in the article is definitely correct, but I don't think these sources are the best possible.)
  • Replaced whatever I could. This says "The CNNUSA Today poll of 1,016 Americans, conducted by the Gallup Organization" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [65] is authored by Elizabeth Wolfe
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [71] is authored by Natasha Metzler
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance! eviolite (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eviolite, thanks a lot for all the comments. I think I fixed/replied all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kavyansh.Singh (and I apologize for making comments that, in hindsight, are way too nitpicky and unnecessary).

No need to apologize for that. I think reviewers should list down everything they think while reviewing, doesn't matter how nitpicky it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My point for paragraph 2/3 was that paragraph 2 goes from talking about the top 10, to #1 ("the incumbent president.."), to talking about the top 10 again ("In his lifetime,..."), to #1 again (Dwight D. Eisenhower..."), which may be a bit confusing.

• Is it better now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link to JSTOR. I find it interesting that due to the open-ended format, many do not come up with a response (top of p574), but I don't know if it's helpful to include.

• Not much. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the tie: [12] only gave one winner for that one, but seeing that everything else calls it a tie, it's fine.

• Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have TWL access, but looking at it again, it seems you can just zoom in on it for free, so never mind.

That's all. eviolite (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: Done! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy to support now. Great work! eviolite (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully promoting the 2012 Summer Olympics medal table to featured list status and rescuing the 1984 Summer Olympics medal table from demotion of featured list status, I felt that I could greatly contribute to help improve the 2020 Summer Olympics medal table to featured list status as well. This was also inspired by RunningTiger123's commendation of my first non-film FLC promotion. Anyways, I've followed the 1984 and 2012 Summer Games medal table for guidance. I will gladly take comments on how to improve this table. Birdienest81talk 09:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

• "Olympiad, were a" → "Olympiad, was a"
• "summer multi-sport" → Summer here is redundant and unhelpful (what is a summer sport? does it differ from a spring sport or fall sport?), best to just replace with "international" as used in the main article
• "the Japan" → "the" unnecessary (I also question the need to state that Tokyo is the capital of Japan at all, since Tokyo is one of the world's megacities)
• "The games were scheduled one year from its original date due to the COVID-19 pandemic." → "The games were postponed by one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic."
• "making it the most successful Olympics performance" → " making it their most successful Olympics performance"
• "and The Philippines" → Should "The" be capitalized here?
• "their nation's first Olympic medal" → "their nation's first Olympic medals"
• "[12][13][b]" → I'd move the footnote ahead of the citations since otherwise it's kind of hard to see and likely to be missed.
• "medals for the" → "medals used for the"
• Use the lang template for the romanji words.
• Link "Japanese ash" instead of "ash wood"?
• The alt texts shouldn't have periods.
• Haven't checked the refs or image licenses. AryKun (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Although not required, a review at my FLC would be appreciated.

• @AryKun: I think I have done everything you've mentioned above. I am not sure if I did the template for the Japanese words correctly. I've never done an article that involved Japanese words before.

--Birdienest81talk 10:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed and happy to support this list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96

• "Japan National Stadium during the 2020 Summer Olympics." - the word "The" is missing from the start of this sentence that is present in the image caption in the infobox
• "the latter one" - consider replacing the word denoted in bold with another word
• "Two gold medals (and no silver) were awarded for a first-place tie in the men's high jump athletics event" - consider adding the names of the athletes who received these gold medals
• "Two bronze medals were awarded for a third-place tie in the women's floor gymnastics event." - same as above
• The ruling date in the List of official changes in medal standings is incorrect
• "a team of Great Britain was disqualified" - the Great Britain team
• References 4, 16, 32, 33, 34 have not yet had an archive link added to them

That's all I have MWright96 (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @MWright96: Done - Everything has been corrected based on your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 09:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Japan National Stadium C-gate on 2021 July 28.jpg, File:Countries by medals 2020 Summer Olympics.svg, and File:Daniel Ståhl in 2019-2.jpg are indeed the uploaders' own works
• I'm not sure what to make of File:Caeleb Dressel (USA) 2018.jpg or File:April Ross (USA) 2017.jpg when marked as "safe" yet the source URLs say "all rights reserved"
• No copyright concerns with File:Neisi Dajomes.jpg, File:WK3B0180 1000m zevenkamp warner.jpg, or File:Vincent Hancock wins gold in men’s skeet at the 2020 Summer Olympic Games (51352451809).jpg

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: Done: I've Replaced the two images in question with ones that (hopefully) do not have any copyright violations. The first one is claimed as own work by the uploader author. The second one has a "Some Rights Reserved" on its Flickr source.

--Birdienest81talk 02:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No problems with the replacement image added :). My only qualm with the prose is how it feels monotonous to have almost every sentence under "Medals" start with "the", but that's not enough to prevent me from giving my support to this nomination. Just reword it for more word diversity and it'll be good to go. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where in source [3] is the number of athletes mentioned? Or the 206 countries?

• Done: Added news article from CNN indicating both numbers.

• "former" and "latter" makes for clumsy reading, I think we should look for a rephrase here.

• Done': Rearranged two sentences for better flow.

• "2004 Summer Games" put Summer Games into the pipe.

• Done: Summer Games is now part of pipe.

• "won the greatest number of medals overall, winning seven" won/winning not needed, replace "winning" with "with"!

• Done: Replaced accordingly.

• "Soviet gymnast" might be worth linking Soviet here to some appropriate Soviet Union @ the Olympics article. Not long now and readers won't know what "Soviet" even means.

• Done: Linked Soviet to Soviet Union at the 1952 Olympics. Soviet Union at the Olympics in general is linked at the second mention of the nation in the same paragraph. Therefore this avoids overlinking.

• "The design of the medals used for the 2020 Summer Olympics was created by ..." why not "The medals used ... were designed by..."?

• Done: Changed sentence appropriately.

• "the COVID-19 pandemic, athletes" this is the second link to the pandemic, but the one in the lead was a general link, this is to "in Japan" shouldn't we be consistent?

• Done: Linked first one in lead to pandemic in Japan.

• In the image captions, why not link the events which are being described?

• Done: Linked events in captions.

• "Medals have not yet been reallocated." needs an "as of".

• Done: Added "As of February 2022".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Done - I have addressed all your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 06:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a first glance, this looks pretty good for FL, but there are several concerns I have; if they're resolved I'll strike and support. GeraldWL 06:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice work right there-- was a pleasure to watch some of the games, and this I feel is eligible for FL. GeraldWL 16:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest of my US number one songs lists, covering a year in the life of what is now the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart - 75 years before the chart was topped by the likes of Lil Nas X and Drake, the longest uninterrupted run of the year at number one was by a guy playing the vibraphone. That's the evolution of popular music for you...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing caption, you know the drill. --PresN 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell!!

Now sorted :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section a. - Might be good to add a citation for "a time when Billboard published only one R&B chart" . — Maile (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Image licencing looks good. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Joel Whitburn's Top R & B Singles, 1942-1995 — the hyphen needs to be en-dash
• Top R&B/Hip-Hop Singles: 1942-2004. — the hyphen (between years) needs to be en-dash.
• Ref#4, #6, #8, #61 are the same book. They need to be merged. Use either {{Sfn}} or {{Rp}} for page numbers
• Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs using this tool.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• ""Race records" was a term" — try not to start a sentence by a quote
• "group the Ink Spots" — I think 'T' should be capitalized
• Maybe add a short description for the article.

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - all done except:

I don't know what a "short description" is, can you advise?

Per MOS:THEBAND, when a band name starting with "the" is used mid-sentence, the T should not be capitalised -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did the short description thing. Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Ojorojo[reply]

• This is not necessary for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
• I am not the best editor when it comes to images so take this with an entire mountain of salt. The source links for File:Lionel Hampton.JPG are no longer active. They were tied to an eBay entry so it is likely the product was either sold or the seller pulled it from their account so it is no longer available through the links. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
• For this part, The record would also be equalled by Drake in 2016, shouldn't Drake's song be named since both "Choo Choo Ch'Boogie" and "Old Town Road" are named in the prose?
• I would link R&B in this part, the magazine's multimetric R&B chart, as I believe it would be beneficial to readers. It would also be consistent with another music genre (i.e. rock and roll) getting a link in the lead.
• For the Billboard citations, I would include more information, specifically the volume and issue number and the ISSN. Apologies in advance as I know it is a pain to go back through all the citations for this, but I think it is important to include all the information here.

Wonderful work with the list as always. My comments are relatively minor, and once they are all addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: all done apart from the last one. Can you advise what parameters to use for the volume and issue numbers? I can't figure it out. There is no "issue" parameter........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for addressing everything so far. Instead of using the cite book template, I would use the cite journal template for magazines as it has the parameters for volume and issues numbers as well as ISSN. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any further questions about this. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can also try {{Cite magazine}} for magazine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the update. I think either the magazine or journal templates would be appropriate in this case. The list looks great to me, and I support it for promotion. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC about a much more modern piece of R&B music. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lyon is an Aussie cricketer who is more interestingly known as Gary the Goat. This list was more or less complete when I found it and one of the few among this type of list to not be FL, so I thought I'd take it through. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Don't need commas round his name in the image caption

Removed.

• "As of August 2019, he is yet to....." - August 2019 was well over two years ago, is this sentence actually up to date?

He hasn't played any T20Is since, so still his only wicket. Updated the as of template.

One use of "as of August 2019" remains..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked that, he doesn't have any ODI fifers yet and those remain his best figures, so updated.

• I don't believe the Test ten-wicket hauls table is needed, as all the info is already clearly marked in the main table

The ten-wicket haul table is worth keeping, it doesn't actually duplicate any information. It's certainly quicker to peruse for someone specifically looking for Lyon's ten-wicket hauls than digging through the main table.

• That's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with the row scopes you have lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="width:5%;"|No. becomes !scope=col style="width:5%;"|No..

• I think I've added this to all the column headers, could you check? AryKun (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review — Pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lyon has taken 18 five-wicket hauls for his country across 105 Tests, 29 ODIs, and 2 T20Is as of February 2022." — should be "As of February 2022, Lyon has taken 18 five-wicket hauls for his country across 105 Tests, 29 ODIs, and 2 T20Is."

Done.

• "at the Galle International Stadium, Galle" — Do we need to repeat 'Galle'? Same with "the Adelaide Oval, Adelaide on", and various other stadiums.

removed the name of the city for stadiums where the stadium name indicates the city.

• "at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru on" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA

Added.

• "on 8 March 2012", "29 January 2016" v. "4 March, 2017" — be consistent on whether to put comma after month or not. Same in the table.

Added in the text per DATECOMMA, but the ones in the tables are in templates and can't have commas added.

• !scope=col Symbol should be !scope=col | Symbol Same with !scope=col Meaning, and in the "Test ten-wicket hauls" section table.

Done.

• I think 'Lost' or 'Won' cells could be colored in red or green respectively. For example, current FLC: this

I'm not good with tables and can't figure out how to do this, could you help?

I did it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

That is it. Would appreciate if you could take a look at this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look soon. AryKun (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this for FL! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and as of February 2022 only 40" as the retrieval date for the source for this stat is August 2019, worth a look again. I counted 49 with a quick look...

Updated.

• He's currently on 106 Tests, as it's March now.

Updated.

• "on 31 August, 2011," no comma after August.

Done.

• "best figures in " link bowling figures.

Done.

• "415 wickets in Tests" 417 now.

Updated.

• "overall" seems odd, you need a better way of expressing "in all cricket nations".

Reworded.

• And it's tied 14th now with Harbhajan Singh.

Updated, tied 13th with Pollock now.

• "Lyon made his Test debut against Sri Lanka at the Galle International Stadium on 31 August, 2011, " vs "Lyon made his ODI debut against Sri Lanka at the Adelaide Oval on 8 March, 2012.[12]" jarringly repetitive.

Attempted rewording.

• "8 March, 2012" no comma after March.

Done.

• Not going to mention the commas any more, check all dates, in DMY we don't have a comma between month and year.

Done.

• "Darren Sammy" one R in Daren.

Done.

• There's a section on ten-wicket hauls, but that's not even mentioned in the lead.

Added small para.

• Note [a], Lyon appears to be now tied with Swann, Gibbs and Southee. And update the retrieval dates for stats you're saying "as of February (should be March now) 2022" so they don't say retrieved in 2019. Complete giveaway!!

Done, and updated for all where the date is relevant (the ones that aren't match reports).

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging The Rambling Man. AryKun (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I believe this list is comprehensive enough... —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• "Dil Chahta Hai premiered at theatres 10 August 2001" => "Dil Chahta Hai premiered at theatres on 10 August 2001"
• "Although succeeded commercially in metropolitan areas" => "Although the film succeeded commercially in metropolitan areas"
• "and won seven of which" => "and won seven"
• "that include Best Supporting Actor" => "including Best Supporting Actor"
• Shaan and most (but not all) of the uses of Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy sort at the top of the recipients column, can't figure out why but it's definitely wrong
• Some uses of Saif Ali Khan sort under A (other sort under K). I am pretty sure that his surname is just Khan, so it should sort under K
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed the full stop on the image caption but I added that and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source, image, and prose reviewing this all at once. However source looks all good so that's an immediate source pass. The infobox image is fine license-wise, but I'd like a less blurry image; the lack of clarity is kind of annoying. GeraldWL 07:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. GeraldWL 15:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link ₹ as it's not a commonly known currency, otherwise this is good to go! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... Rush was one of the greatest goal scorers of his generation and has held records of that nature both for Wales and Liverpool, where he is still all-time leading goalscorer. I have expanded the lead to comply with the FL criteria and I hope it will pass inspection. Any criticism is welcome as always! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The prose is extremely short at less than 1300 characters. Is there really not any more to say?

Normally I would add more about any tournaments that they qualified for but that's not the case with this one. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Get rid of the {{clear}} which (on my screen at least) causes a massive unnecessary whitespace  Done
• "Rush's goal tally included famous goal" => "Rush's goal tally included a famous goal"  Done
• Also, famous according to whom?

I have added another reference referring to the famous circumstances of his goal. If you feel that doesn't suffice then I would be happy to take it out. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Next sentence starts with "And", which is a non-no  Done
  • You can't start a sentence with "As well as" either. It clearly follows on from the previous sentence, so just combine both sentences into one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
• "against during a friendly against China." - huh?  Done
• "one of only 15 ever scored by the nation" - the nation of Wales had never scored a hat-trick, needs rewording  Done
• Opponents are linked every time in the table but venues and competitions only once each - why is this?  Done
• Why is the first digit in the score column in bold?  Done
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`  Done
• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! No.` becomes `! scope=col | No.`, etc. - each on their own line --PresN 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN:,  Done. Sorry it took so long. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PresN:, are there any other issues that you would like me to address? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is File:Ian Rush, Wales Team, 1988 (2).jpg licensed as CC SA 4.0? The source states that "Auteursrechthebbende Nationaal Archief, CC0", which probably translates as "Copyright holder National Archives, CC0". So it should be CC 0 license.  Done
• Suggesting to add ALT text.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review. Though, still suggesting to add ALT text, but I doubt whether its a part of FL, or even FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The short description is almost same as the list title. Can set it to "{{short decription|none}}"  Done
• The article lead should be somewhat in the chronological order. We mention his 1996 retirement before him becoming all-time top goalscorer in 1992.  Done
• "during a friendly against" — not a sports person, but shouldn't it be "during a friendly match against"?  Done
• Can we expand the lead?
• In the references, should write "RSSSF.com"as just "RSSSF" in the "Publisher" field.  Done
• That is pretty much all there is to say.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as I made significant edits in the list, and am too involved to support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Kavyansh, the lead does feel a bit sparse. Is there nothing more we can add?
• "He made his debut on 21 May 1980, in an away game against Scotland. He scored his first international goal two years later, in his eighth international appearance, a home game against Northern Ireland." Both of these sentences need references
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rush became the Wales national team's all-time top goalscorer on 9 October 1992, when he scored the only hat-trick of his Wales career in a 6–0 win over the Faroe Islands to bring him level with the record held by Trevor Ford, who scored 23 goals in 38 matches between 1947 and 1957, and Ivor Allchurch, who scored the same number in 68 matches between 1951 and 1966." This sentence is far too long. I'd split it into two.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Big concerns about the use of eu-football.info referencing the whole table. This site doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. A much better source or individual referencing of his goals will be needed instead.
  • Very much agreeing, I did this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit: I think I addressed most of your concerns. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rush broke the record with a goal against Belgium on 31 March 1993, and scored four more goals in his Wales career to extend the record to 28 goals." - this sentence will need verifying by a reliable citation
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "He held it until 2018, when Gareth Bale scored his 29th international goal during a friendly against China." - same issue as above
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rush's tally included a famous goal that saw Wales beat then-world champions Germany in 1991." - please state the final score of the match mentioned in this sentence
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Use the Abbr template on the No. column in the main table to indict to the reader hovering over it that it means number
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider adding an extra column in the main stating the cap in which the goal(s) were scored as is common with other "List of international goals scored by xxxxxxxx" that are featured lists
  • I am not sure how to do this, or how to find citations for the same. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The individual goals that Rush scored and mentioned in the table can be individually referenced as is common with similiar lists that are featured
  • Sure; done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have MWright96 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thanks for the review. I think I fixed the all of it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: References 1 and 12 are duplicates of each other; only one should be used for both the information that is verifies in the lede and the caps column MWright96 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Have no more issues to raise MWright96 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: Are you still planning on continuing with this nomination? --PresN 14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to continue but I have been down with a flu-type illness for the past few days and can't promise an immediate response. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: Okay, last call- some of these comments have been here for two months without a response, so this nomination will be closed soon if there's no actions taken. --PresN 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:, I am very sorry for the delays. I am not going to be able to complete this nom. Could I ask round to see if someone else wants to pick it up? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead seems a bit on the meagre side for me. Could expand a bit here and there, e.g. "away game against Scotland" in what tournament, and which ended in what score and Rush failed to get on the scoresheet. "years later in a home game against Northern Ireland.[3]" could do similar.
  • Tried to add. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "on 9 October 1992, when he scored" table says September of that year...
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "became the Wales national team's" odd because he really "drew level with the top scorer" on that occasion before becoming sole top scorer with his next goal...
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ford. Ford" repetitive.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "23 goals in 38 matches between 1947 and 1957, and Ivor Allchurch, who scored the same number in 68 matches but I don't think it's mentioned in the prose how many matches it took Rush to get there?
  • Now we have the 'cap' column, so it is there in the table. Specified in the lead too. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "scored four more goals in " no need to repeat goals I don't think.
  • Started a new paragraph from this sentence, so I think mentioning 'goal' is fine now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• And that sentence uses "record" twice which is also repetitive.
  • Above reply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "included a famous goal" according to whom? This is POV.
  • Removed 'famous' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not convinced the "Competition" column should sort as it does. Either force it to sort by year of tournament or tournament name, but not by free text (which it currently does).
  • Fixed; per name alphabetically. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would add a "Cap" column which I seem to recall is used in other such FLs, so we can see his progression.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Also IIRC summary tables of how many apps/goals he scored each year of his international career are commonplace in these articles.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6 is just BBC while ref 7 is BBC Sport. Be consistent.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a quick review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM, can you please take another look whenever you are free. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good lead and is understable, the content is sourced, it has never had any edit war recently. The article is stable (I only made many changes on the last two days to improve it and it's been edited less than 50 times and has existed for 5,5 years). The table is accessible. Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "His first international goal came in his fourth appearance for his country on 1 November 1967, against Cyprus, when he scored a hat-trick" maybe " His scored his first international goal in his fourth appearance for his country on 1 November 1967, as part of a hat-trick against Cyprus"?
  • The Rambling Man His scored his first international goal [...] I could be ignorant but isn't "his" a possessive adjective? Did you perhaps mean "He scored his first international goal [...]"? Dr Salvus 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, typo for me, I meant "He scored his first ...." sorry. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Hat-trick needs to be linked. First time...

 Done

• I would say what tournament/qualifier was for his debut goal.

 Done

• "made his last appearance on" at all levels or just for Italy?

 Done

• "He scored six times in total against Luxembourg, the most he scored" repetitive "he scored".

 Done

• "Riva scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship, three..." this single-sentence paragraph is best suited at the end of the lead and preferably merged, so it's not stand-alone.

 Done

• "first tournament" international.

 Done

• Link "replay".

 Done

• "last appearance on 19 June 1974 in a 1–1 draw against Argentina during the 1974 FIFA World Cup" yet the summary table says in 1974 he only played in two friendlies?

 Done

• "Napoli, " called Naples in English.

 Done

• Competitive apps in that table don't add up to 29 either.

 Done

• Nor goals (25 instead of 27).

 Done

• In fact, check all totals....!

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man  Done Dr Salvus 21:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goals totals are still incorrect. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man I should've fixed Dr Salvus 17:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man, sorry for my being stupid and for my being distracted. Thanks your correcting the thing I hadn't noticed. Given that everything you've said has been fixed would you support the nomination (and promote the page to FL if possibile)? Dr Salvus 19:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. Somehow this list missed getting an accessibility review, so I just went ahead and made the changes myself (there was one column scope missing, and row scopes in the first table). Promoting. --PresN 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With 2021 out of the way, it's time to nominate this list ready to (hopefully) add it to the Featured Topic. This time round, I have added DanTheMusicMan2 as a co-nom, as he did the legwork of adding each week's number ones as they were announced. Hope that's OK, Dan! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Passes my image review, though if you could replace File:191125 Taylor Swift at the 2019 American Music Awards (cropped).png with her any other image, would be better. Licence wise, it is fine (CC licences are non-revocable), but the fact that Cosmopolitan UK changed their video description to make licencing a bit more restrictive looks a bit ... Regardless, we have a lot of images in Commons:Category:Taylor Swift in 2019. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Passes my source review as well! On first read, I got nothing that could be an issue with the sources. On second read, the only thing I could get was that you can change the link target of Vulture in Ref#6 from [[New York (magazine)|Vulture]] to [[Vulture (magazine)|Vulture]] (a redirect page) just so that if redirects to a particular section. Ref#12 to Ref#113 — all good, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose and the table coding seem fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we'd gotten into the mindset of linking "chart" in these articles?
• "began being published" this seems awkward, could "began publication" or ", published since ..." work?
• "number one on the Country Airplay chart, having previously been number one for the chart dated December 19, 2020,[2] while "I Hope" by Gabby Barrett held the number one " -> "number one" used thrice in a single sentence...!
• In fact "number one" appears 17 times in the lead, and yes I know it's about number ones, but you could use alternatives to mix it up a little?
• "give former American Idol contestant" we sometimes get told which season they were from for context.
• I don't seem to be able to access ref 1 without a subscription.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all address, I think. And can I say how good it is to see you back :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, welcome back. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my primary concerns addressed. And thank you both for your kind words. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "but went back to the peak position" - returned to.
• All sources are properly formatted and reliable.

Pretty solid list; just one minor tweak suggestion above. Support either way. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting.

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajol is one of the most popular Indian actress in the 1990s. I am nominating the list because I think it covers completely all awards she received during her career. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The main thing that jumps out at me is that the "lots and lots of little tables" format for awards lists has been deprecated for a long time. The awards should all be in one table like List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "one Stardust Awards." => "one Stardust Award."
• "After made her debut" => "After making her debut"
• "Kajol was honoured with Karamveer Puraskar" - no context as to what this is. Can you explain?
• As the table is sortable, anything linked needs to be linked every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't linked the categories each time they appear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I forgot that, done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kajol received critical acclaim and the Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress for playing a granddaughter in Udhaar Ki Zindagi (1994)" - surely you can be a little more descriptive when writing about her role than "playing a granddaughter".
• "In 1998, she was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost." The films were released in 1998. She was nominated the next year. How about "Kajol was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for her 1998 films: Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost"?
• "Her performance as a twin in Dushman also won her a first Screen Award for Best Actress" - she did not play "a" twin only. It's only logical that both of the roles (twin sisters) were played by her.
• In the table of content, you don't have to list every alphabet but only the ones that start with the names of the awards she has received.

This looks otherwise good. FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• " 29 awards, including six ..." comparable values should be all words or all numerals.
• Looks like she won 6 Screen Awards?
• "thus becoming" no need for "thus".
• "received another award of the same category for Gupt" clumsy, might just as well link Zee Cine Award for Best Actor – Female instead.
• "Apart from acting awards, Kajol" maybe "Along with..." instead of "Apart from" and avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
• I do not accept the inclusion of awards which don't have Wikipedia articles, i.e. that en.wiki consider to be non-notable, such as "POGO Amazing Kids Awards".
• The state honours really need explanation as to their significance because apart from the Padma Shri award, there's absolutely no context for the reader as to what the award or awarding body mean and why it should be included.

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, two of the honours are completely unexplained. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate please? I have explained why she was given the honours in the lead. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version

• MOS:REFLINK puts citations as stand-alone. Wikilink all |work= parameters in references (details below)
• ref 1 |work= to "[[Indian Express]]" (redirect is good; [[The Indian Express|Indian Express]] is also fine if you wish), remove the "The" infront as the newspaper titled as such; add |location=Madras (no wikilink)
• ref 4 wikilink Filmfare
• ref 5, 42 wikilink Rediff.com
• ref 6 |title= to "Movie review: 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai', starring Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol, Rani Mukherjee"
• ref 7 |date= to 11 December 2001
• ref 8 |title= to "Fanaa - Destroyed in Love"
• ref 10, 27, 28, 34 - add |publication-place=Mumbai (no wikilink)
• ref 14, 19, 33, 36, 38, 44 wikilink Bollywood Hungama
• ref 11 add |publication-place=New Delhi (no wikilink)
• ref 13, 16 |url-status=usurped
• ref 15 add |publication-place=New York (no wikilink), URL seems live, at least accessible to me, - mark it as such?
• ref 17 wikilink Bollywood Movie Awards and |url-status=usurped
• ref
• ref 20, 26, 38, 44 |url-status=live
• ref 22, 36 |url-status=deviated and "publisher=[[Bollywood Hungama|IndiaFM]]" - It was still IndiaFM back then
• ref 27, 28, 30, 32, 34 wikilink The Indian Express
• ref 31 wikilink Screen (magazine)
• ref 41 wikilink Zee Cine Awards
• ref 43 wikilink Zee Cine Awards and |url-status=dead

— DaxServer (t · c · m) 13:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your good work! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 06:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Additionally I've spotchecked, and it's a source pass. GeraldWL 07:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well sourced and complete list of Robert Duvall's film and television work. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:PresN - Great recommendation, see the latest change for the addition of screen reader caption to the 2 tables. Let me know if that wasn't what you meant lol Thanks for the review! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "American actor, director and producer" — If the article is in American English, I'll suggest using Oxford comma after 'director'
• "as General Dwight D. Eisenhower" — pipe 'General' out of the link
• "in the epic Western adventure" — avoid linking multiple adjacent words
• "in MASH (1970)" should be "M*A*S*H (1970)"
• "Dr. John H. Watson" — just "Dr. Watson" would suffice
• "In 1983, he was cast" — at start of every paragraph, replace 'he' or other pronouns with 'Duvall'
• "Western" and "Christian Bale" are linked multiple times in the lead.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]