Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2023

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Grade I/Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, and with historic parks and gardens getting the same statutory status as buildings in Wales in 2022, I wanted to try and get a list of Monmouthshire gardens up to the same standard. I owe a huge debt to User:EdwardUK who did all of the work on the formatting, making this really a joint nomination. I've tried to get a corresponding article, an image and notes for every entry. Where a full article's not been appropriate/possible, due to the paucity of sources, I've created a section in a linked article. I've gone back through the FL criteria, and it seems to meet these, but I've been very close to the list, so it would greatly benefit from some independent scrutiny. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do a full review later but just noting that some of the notes don't need full stops. "The rare remnants of a Tudor garden." for example is not a complete sentence so doesn't need one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - appreciated. Will sort those. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You spell mediaeval like that in the lead but without the first a later on

Done, I hope.

Apologies - I missed one use of "medieval" in the first paragraph of the lead. So you need to change the spelling there and also move the wikilink to that usage rather than the one in the third paragraph -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary! Both done. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "with possible attributions to Samuel Lapidge, a pupil of Capability Brown, and John Claudius Loudon." - this could technically refer to two or three people. Any way to reword?

Done - by tweaking the wording to try to make clear there were only two.

• "The gardens, including a lakeside Japanese garden are mostly lost," => "The gardens, including a lakeside Japanese garden, are mostly lost,"

Done.

• "but traces of the 18th century park, and the earlier deer park, remain" => "but traces of the 18th century park and the earlier deer park remain"

Done.

• "recorded in his 1807 history; Descriptive Account of the Kymin Pavilion and Beaulieu Grove with their various views; also a description of the Naval Temple that ten counties could be seen from its upper storey; (Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Glamorganshire, Breconshire, Montgomeryshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Radnorshire, Shropshire and Somerset)" => "recorded in his 1807 history, Descriptive Account of the Kymin Pavilion and Beaulieu Grove with their various views; also a description of the Naval Temple, that ten counties could be seen from its upper storey (Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Glamorganshire, Breconshire, Montgomeryshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Radnorshire, Shropshire and Somerset)"

Done - but I've kept the italics for the book title.

• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - many thanks indeed for taking a look. I hope I've addressed all of these, and the issue of full stops where it's not actually a full sentence. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the tables used templates instead of wikitables, I updated the templates to have better accessibility; this included:
• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The header template now allows for this; visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text as a parameter; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. The template now makes the "name" cell of each row the row header, no additional work needed.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A caption has been added. Thanks for improving the templates and the related listed building templates they were based on. EdwardUK (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagging a place. Back shortly. Tim riley talk 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How wise of me to hang back till Dudley has done all the heavy lifting. Not much from me. A few quibbles about points of prose, but as a whole the article seems to me of FL quality.

• "the historic county, known between 1974 and 1996 as Gwent" – I'm open to correction, but I don't see the short-lived Gwent as a "historic county"

Done.

• "The house was almost completely destroyed in a fire in 1905 but was restored in the early 21st century" – can you restore something that has been almost completely destroyed? Rebuilt seems more the word.

Done.

• "Clytha Park is "the finest early nineteenth century Greek Revival house in the county" – I always think quotes like this should be attributed inline: "according to So-and So ..."

Done - by attribution.

• "park and garden which was designed..." – two nouns but a singular verb. I'd dodge the issue by just writing "park and garden designed..."

Done.

• "landscaping which may have been undertaken by Samuel Lapidge, who studied under Capability Brown, and subsequently John Claudius Loudon – ambiguous. It is that Lapidge studied under Brown and then Loudon or that Loudon succeeded Lapidge as designer?

Done, I hope. I've got into rather a tangle with this, Chris didn't like my earlier version! I hope it's now clear that earlier work is attributed to Lapidge, who studied under Brown, and that later work is attributed to Loudon.

• "American redwoods and a Monkey Puzzle" – not sure why monkey puzzle needs capital letters (unless in honour of the beloved Araucaria).

Done.

• "Monmouthshire's best example of an 18th century Picturesque landscape" – says who?

Done - by a tweak that allows attribution. Whittle did also say it, but I can't immediately lay my hands on the text.

• "dated quite precisely to between 1840 and 1872" – not sure a third of a century is all that precise a period.

All inconsequential stuff. The actual content of the page seems to my layman's eyes to be excellent. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 14:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - greatly appreciated, and most helpful. I hope the issues are resolved to your satisfaction, but let me know if any concerns remain. KJP1 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had to refresh my memory about the FL criteria, as I don't review many FL candidates, and this one seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look once Tim has had his say, but a few initial comments. 1. I am not sure why you say that there are inadequate sources for articles on some sites. The designations always appear to provide sufficient for a stub article. 2. You refer to "Parks and gardens of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important". The second part is vague and it is not in the source, so far as I can see. 3. The primary source in similar lists is generally the designation. Is there a reason you do not use it? You seem to be using a shorter summary of the same source. 4. Some of the descriptions are too short. They should convey more useful information to the reader. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, please go first. I'd much prefer to bring up the rear after your much more expert input. Tim riley talk 21:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles - Thanks very much for agreeing to take a look. Taking your preliminary points in order:

• Stubs - I agree that in most cases you can find enough to do a Start, e.g. Bailey Park, Abergavenny, Bertholey House, which I've written from scratch. The challenge is something like Brynderwen or Pant-y-Goitre House, where you've really only got a few sentences worth. That said, I take the point and can look to expand these. However, for the purposes of this list, do you think the linked approach is ok?

• Looking at the criteria, there is no requirement for an article on each item, so that is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• International importance - Agreed and removed, not quite sure where that came from;
• Primary source - Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake here. The official Cadw designation is given in the Reference number column, with a link to the document. The reference/citation in the Notes column is to the corresponding RCAHMW record. It is, at least to me, a peculiarity of the Welsh system that Cadw and the Royal Commission each maintain their own official records, with differing designation numbers and sometimes different spellings/terminology for the same sites. But they do, probably for historic reasons, the Commission predating Cadw by some 75 years, and it seemed helpful to give readers access to both the official records. Does this answer your question?

• Two official sources is as you say unusual, and I have not come across it before. I would personally have put both in the reference number column, but that is a matter of personal preference. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not create any parameters for RCAHMW/Coflein numbers in the template and I think that having them could be confusing for readers as the two systems do not quite match. Cadw only has a single reference number that covers an entire park/garden site. Some RCAHMW records cover that same site in full but others are for individual elements within it such as deer park, Japanese garden and kitchen garden. I think Scotland has something similar with its Canmore (database). EdwardUK (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward makes a good point. In expanding the notes I came across, as one example, Troy House, which Cadw covers in the one record, while RCAHMW has six!; the park (700389), the garden (266097), the kitchen garden (23109), the game larder (23108), the house itself (20938), and the lodges (20936). There's no denying the complexity which arises from the multiple "official" records, but I hope the list makes it as clear as possible for the reader. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Too short Notes - A very fair criticism. I shall look to expand the short ones over the next day of so.

Have now tried to expand these throughout. I hope I've got the right balance between too little and too much. I'd be pleased to revisit any where you think more is still needed. KJP1 (talk)

Look forward to further comments. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its heightened status reflected an increased recognition of the importance of historic landscapes; Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust writing, "historic parks and gardens are an integral part of the Welsh archaeological and architectural heritage." This confusing and - I think - ungraamatical. Text separated by a smeicolon should be capable of being two sentences, which the second half is not. Maybe "Its heightened status reflected an increased recognition of the importance of historic landscapes, and Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust observes that "historic parks and gardens are an integral part of the Welsh archaeological and architectural heritage."

Done - by splitting.

• "In the 20th century Henry Avray Tipping created four gardens, all of which feature at Grade II* on the Cadw /ICOMOS Register." This is too wordy. How about "In the 20th century Henry Avray Tipping created four gardens, all of which are Grade II*."

Done - as suggested.

• No changed needed, but it seems strange that Cadw does not give the area of sites.

Noted, and agree.

• "the park was created by Roger Bigod, great-grandson of William Marshal who greatly expanded the castle in the late 12th century." The date that Bigod created the park would be more relevant than that William Marshall was one of those who built the castle, which is not part of the site.

Done.

• "Originally common land, later developed as an urban park. In the 19th century, it was notable for its horse racing events and in the 21st it accommodates sports grounds and a children's playground." There is material to expand this short description.

Done - have tried an expansion.

• Dewstow House. The description is misleading. It only covers the underground gardens, and the Cadw designation states that they were only part of the site. The description also says that they were largely covered over, but the ref just says some features.

Done - I hope it is now clearer.

• Glen Usk. Another description which could be expanded.

Done - by another expansion.

• "with possible attributions to Samuel Lapidge". I am not sure what this means.

Done - it wasn't clear, but I hope it is now.

• You twice link and describe the bee of Gwent.

Done - by removal of the first mention at Coldbrook.

• Lower Duffryn House. This is designated solely for its gardens, but most of the description is about the house.

Done - I've tried to expand it, and put the focus back on the garden rather than the house.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated and much improved through the comments. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have tried to pre-empt you, in anticipation of the next batch, by expanding some of the shorter remaining entries! KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The grounds of an episcopal palace of the mediaeval Bishops of Llandaff, the building was restored from 1894 as his home by Henry Avray Tipping." This is confusing. "his home" should refer back to the bishop, and I initially took it that way and had to do a double take.

Done - by rewording.

• "Another house and garden by Tipping". You should not have "another" in a sortable list as it may not be the next item when sorted. You should also give Tipping's full name and link it each time for the same reason. The general rule is that links should be repeated in sortable lists.

Done - removed "another" and put the links back in.

• "Another house and garden by Tipping, supported by Eric Francis". I think you mean "assisted" rather than "supported"?

Done.

• "The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) describes New Cemetery". I think that the roles of Cadw and RCAHW should be covered in the lead. The fact that the Cadw designation covers whole sites and there are often several for each site in RCAHW designations could be explained in a note.

Done - almost (see below).

• "a Victorian nuttery". What is a nuttery? Is there a suitable article to link to?

Done. It's a orchard of nut-bearing trees. The Victorians liked this sort of feature, a variant is a stumpery. Unfortunately, we've no suitable link that I've found, so I've expanded the note.

• "The Tal-y-coed estate was owned by Joseph Bradney, an antiquarian and author of A History of Monmouthshire from the Coming of the Normans into Wales down to the Present Time, a multi-volume history of the county" You should give the date of publication.

Done.

• The Argoed. When a site name in a sortable list starts with "The", Template:Sortname should be used to sort on the significant word, not "The".

Not Done - see below.

Done - EdwardUK

• "An ancient home of the Proberts". The source says "laid out in the time of the Probert family who then owned the estate". That does not support "ancient home".

Done.

• "the property was owned by John Wedgwood, son of Josiah, who was a enthusiastic plantsman, a founder member of the Royal Horticultural Society". This appears to mean that Josiah was the plantsman, but the context suggests John.

Done - by rewording.

• "by members of the Monmouth bourgeoisie". "bourgeoisie" in this context in POV.

Done - have used the source phrasing.

• "Elements of the gardens and a small landscape park developed in the 18th century and re-worked in the 19th." "were developed". Presumably they did not develop themselves.

Done.

• "a rare, listed, dovecote". Dovecotes are not rare and the source does not say that they are. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Dudley - many thanks indeed. I shall get onto these asap. And thanks for the tip on links - I'd actually taken out the multiple Tipping links per FAC! KJP1 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles / EdwardUK - Dudley, thanks very much for these. I've actioned almost everything. Unfortunately, I don't know how to use the SORT feature, in relation to The Argoed, The Hendre, The Hill and The Kymin. I tried but just messed it up. I've pinged Edward who, I'm sure, will succeed where I've failed! And while I have his attention, I'd also like to add another footnote, like Note 1 about the grid references at the start of the table. As you suggest, a footnote giving an example of the different record-keeping approaches of Cadw and the RCAHMW would help the reader. But I don't know how to add another footnote. I'm only really comfortable with sfn, where I'd use efn, but that doesn't work here. Hopefully, Edward will be able to show me the way. Thanks very much indeed for your comments. They have much improved the list. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered the "the" entries and added the sortname. For the footnotes efn does not work if you want a footnote that contains citations, for that you will need to use Refn - for example {{Refn|group=note|An example: Cadw has A<ref>citation 1</ref> RCAHMW has B and C<ref>citation 2</ref><ref>citation 3</ref>}} - depending on the examples used it could be confusing to say that Cadw only has one record where RCAHMW could have many. Both can have additional records for other non-garden or structural elements (fountains, walls...) which in the case of Cadw would be listed buildings (or scheduled monuments), so with Troy House for example Cadw also has several records (walled garden, house...) - as I can not see how it would be possible to clearly and concisely explain this in a footnote I think that the better option would be to avoid the issue by emphasising the park/garden aspect of the records and using only examples from Coflein that reflect this such as park, country house garden or kitchen garden. EdwardUK (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardUK - Edward - first off, thanks very much for sorting the The Sort. Appreciated. And for the advice on the Notes. I understand your concern regarding the challenge of making the complexities of listing clear in a footnote. Let me have a ponder on that and see if I can come up with something we all think works. If I can't, then we can follow your suggested approach. Thanks again, for your advice here, and for creating the lists. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardUK I am not sure why say efn does not work with citations.{{efn|Does this work?<ref>It seems so</ref>}} This looks OK to me, and much simpler than refn. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, I have tested it and it works with efn, though the documentation for the efn and refn templates suggests that it should not. however the efn will still need group=note so that it displays together with the other footnote, rather than using a separate notelist. EdwardUK (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I do not understand group=note, but that obviously does not matter if you do. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, have tried a footnote. The first thing is, it worked! So, thanks both for that. The second thing is, does it explain the point to the reader with sufficient clarity? Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to park and/or garden rather than historic landscape to avoid any confusion with the Cadw register of landscapes of historic interest in Wales. One of these, The Lower Wye Valley (HLW (Gt) 3), has several of these parks/gardens within it. Apart from that it seems to explain it well, and I wonder if it may be useful to also add something similar to the register section of Cadw/ICOMOS article. EdwardUK (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a good point, and your change makes it clearer. Let's see what Dudley thinks, and then if we're all in agreement, I'll put a similar note in the main Cadw/ICOMOS article.

p.s. I suppose that means we need a List of registered historic landscapes in Wales? Sigh. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a list of registered historic landscapes separate from the Registered historic parks and gardens? Is it just in Wales or UK? A summary list similar to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest by Area of Search would be useful. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Wales it is indeed a separate list, which can be accessed here, [2], by filtering out everything but Registered Historic Landscapes. At a quick count, there appear to be around 50. They're basically quite broad, the Lower Wye Valley, the Lleyn Peninsula and Bardsey Island. I'm not sure whether England has something similar? I'm not seeing reference to it on the Historic England search site. I think it would be relatively easy to do something like the SSIs list, although how well they would fit within Principal areas, I'm not sure. I suspect some may cross boundaries. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing boundaries is very common. Many SSSIs are in two counties and are listed in both. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

58 sites in total - and the Cadw/NHAW citation template has already been set up to work for them. The Cadw article mentions historic landscapes, but the link was to Historic landscape characterisation, about the English equivalent. The number is small enough that we should be able to create a single list/article on the Welsh historic landscapes that includes the full list, rather than breaking it up by region. EdwardUK (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

update - article has been created: Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales - EdwardUK (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles - Dudley, thanks very much indeed for the very thorough review. It has been extremely helpful, and has greatly improved the list. Have Edward and I been able to address all the issues, or is there something outstanding that I've missed? Best regards and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks fine, but two final comments.
• "Between 1974 and 1996, the county was known by the ancient title of Gwent,[3] recalling the mediaeval Welsh kingdom." This is not relevant. I would delete.

My only hesitation here is that a number of the important studies, particularly John Newman's Gwent/Monmouthshire, but also Whittle's Glamorgan and Gwent, and, although I've not used it here but may in the future, the official county history, The Gwent County History, all use Gwent in their titles. Not an issue for those of us steeped in the history of local government reorganisations in the UK, but it may help clarify for the wider world that Gwent and Monmouthshire are the same place, rather than two different places. Additionally, some related bodies, such as the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, still use Gwent in their titles. If you're not persuaded, however, I can take it out. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope it does not sound patronising to say that it is not a question of whether I am persuaded. The nominator has to decide whether the criticism is correct, and if not politely disagree. That said, looking again, there is an apparent contradiction. You say that the present county was formed in 1994, and then that it was known as Gwent between 1974 and 1996. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The apparent discrepancy is that the the present county was created by the 1974 Act, but that act, which gained Royal assent in 1994, did not become operative until 1 April 1996. On balance, I'd prefer to keep the reference to Gwent in. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume that "the 1974 Act" is a typo for 1994 Act. For clarity, I suggest "The present county was formed under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, which came into effect in 1996. It has an area of 850 km2 (330 sq mi),[5] with a population of 93,200 as of 2021. It comprises some sixty percent of the historic county of Monmouthshire (known between 1974 and 1996 as Gwent).[3]" Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Cadw/ICOMOS Register uses a single designation for each historic park and/or garden, the reference number in the final column of the list. Individual sites may, however, have multiple historic listing designations. As an example, Abergavenny Castle has the Cadw/ICOMOS designation for its garden.[11] It has Cadw listed building designations for the castle;[12] for the hunting lodge, now the town's museum;[13] for the gate lodge and its gates and wall;[14][15] and for the castle's outer wall.[16] It is also a designated scheduled monument.[17] Lastly, the RCAHMW maintains three records for the site on its National Monuments Record of Wales, Coflein, database: for the garden;[18] for the castle;[19] and for the remains of the town's walls." I find this confusing. It seems to imply a distinction between a Cadw/ICOMOS listing and a Cadw one. If so, you need to clarify. Also, what is "It" in "It is also a designated scheduled monument." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to clarify - both as to what the "it" is, and the Cadw/ICOMOS bit. The listings for the gardens, the listings of the buildings, and the scheduled monument buildings are all Cadw's. The slight quirk is that the gardens/parks register is officially the Cadw/ICOMOS register. I don't know why - ICOMOS must have provided support in some way, probably funding, or possibly advice. Anyways, I hope it's clearer now. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley - sincere thanks for your very detailed review. It has resulted in a better list, and I appreciate that, and the time and effort you've expended. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With more Lebanese living outside of Lebanon than inside, the national football team has reflected this statistic by increasingly using more foreign-born players in their roster. From the Armenian diaspora to today, I managed to gather quite a bit of interesing information. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:12, 23 November 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.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Country of birth [...] becomes !scope=col | Country of birth, with each header cell on its own wikitext line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{BRA}} becomes !scope=row |{{BRA}}, again with the header cells on their own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thanks for the review, I think I've taken care of everything (dif). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the 2000 AFC Asian Cup, the LFA naturalised" - I doubt they did this literally at the tournament
  • Changed to "In preparation for the 2000 AFC Asian Cup". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "as of 2021, Lebanon is" - 2021 will soon be two years ago, so better to say "was"
  • Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Armenian player Vardan Ghazaryan was the Lebanon national team's leading goalscorer" - full stop missing
  • Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "After Homenetmen and Homenmen were relegated to the lower divisions in the early 2000s, Armenian presence in the national team fell" => "After Homenetmen and Homenmen were relegated to the lower divisions in the early 2000s, he Armenian presence in the national team fell"
  • Added "the". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to link Lebanese diaspora twice in consecutive sentences
  • Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "This is a list of football players" - don't bold that last part
  • Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would add to the article if the number of caps and goals was shown against each player, rather than it just being a list of names
  • I could do that, though how do you suggest formatting it? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a fairly simple table of country > player name > caps > goals. Maybe date range of international career? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Done. Do you think the two tables should be kept under a single subheading? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it looks OK right now. One point, though - the list of players should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @ChrisTheDude: Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review! I've taken care of everything (bar the caps+goals request). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One final thing - now that the caps and goals figures have been added to the first table, the figure for Antar is different to both the second table and his image caption.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Hmm, not sure how that slipped through. I've fixed that as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi @Nehme1499. I was just wondering if it be more factually in tune to list the Armenian players as being born in the Soviet Union instead of the Republic of Armenia, and instead note something like... "Apart of present day  Armenia" or "Born in the  Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, in present day  Armenia." I just think this because it lists 'country of birth', and these players were born in the Soviet Union. Just a consequence of the 'Empire like' nature of the Union. Feel free to disagree as its just my opinion, but either way I support as its a good list :) Idiosincrático (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: I'm pretty indifferent about this. The only reason I preferred to put Armenia rather than the Soviet Union is because the players were referred to as “Armenians” by contemporary sources, rather than “Soviet” (in line with the Lebanese of Armenian descent from the early 20th-century). Anyway, if someone else also prefers to keep “Soviet Union” I’ll change it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been here a long time; I found some issues, but went ahead and fixed them rather than keep if going back and forth longer. As such, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 22nd nomination of a year from the history of this chart. In this particular year we see a couple more early Motown bangers from Stevie Wonder and Martha & the Vandellas......and then for reasons which have never been made clear, Billboard opted to scrap the chart.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great work on the list. I only have one comment. "Part Time Love" is highlighted as the best-selling R&B single of 1963. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere in the article? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PanagiotisZois: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right; Support. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• not only in the R&B field but across all genres -- perhaps "R&B" alone is enough, not only in R&B but across all genres
• minor spacing miss - "Lesley Gore,and the Essex"
• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• You're sorting "The Miracles" under "T", but "The Essex" under "E".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool 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.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh - sorted the sorting of the Miracles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 03:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because of the significant success of the film, and addtion of many awards I added than other editors during my overarching plan. Chompy Ace 03:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave comments in the next few days.--Newtothisedit (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)\[reply]

• SupportEverything looks good to me, great list for a great film! --Newtothisedit (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that Lady Gaga should sort under L. It's not like her forename is Lady and her surname Gaga -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude: Done. Chompy Ace 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I disagree with ChrisTheDude regarding sorting – "Lady Gaga" should sort by "G". (The article Lady Gaga effectively uses "Gaga" as a surname, and the featured list List of accolades received by A Star Is Born (2018 film) also sorts by "G".)
• Infobox is off – the final total of 63 wins/173 noms matches the table, but adding all of the rows produces 61 wins/174 noms
  • Hollywood Critics Association Awards/Creative Arts Awards are wrong
  • Saturn Awards are wrong (also need to fix the line in the lead about the Saturn Awards)
  • Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards are wrong
• I think the Online Film Critics Society awards for "Best Picture" and "Top 10 Films of the Year" are the same category
• Add stunt performance award for Satellite Awards
• Remove Category:Paramount Global-related lists (other lists of accolades don't use similar categories)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123: Done. Chompy Ace 04:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With its unique blend of drama and humor, The Sopranos is considered by some to be the greatest TV show of all time and paved the way for the current TV landscape. A former featured list, I have rewritten much of the lead and archived every source in order to bring this list back to its former glory. Note: I have another FLC, but I'm nominating this list now so that it can (hopefully) earn its gold star before the 16th anniversary of the series finale in June. I will be increasing my reviewing to make up for having two outstanding nominations. Newtothisedit (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Italian-American mobster Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) as he struggles" - writing it as "Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini), an Italian-American mobster, as he struggles" would slightly break up the sea of blue
• Can you wikilink Broadcast syndication, as I for one had to look this up to find out what it means
• "Unlike most shows at the time, which typically took a four-month hiatus between seasons" - maybe specify unlike most US shows? A four-month break between seasons has never been the norm at all in my part of the world
• Links to main articles have the show title in normal type and the season in italics - shouldn't that be the other way round?
• I will leave looking exhaustively through the refs to someone else, but one thing that I did notice is that number 71 is missing a publisher -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All fixed Newtothisedit (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "James Gandolfini is the only cast member to appear in all 86 episodes of the series." – citation needed
  • Added citations
• Ref. 12: Italicize "The Sopranos"
  • Done
• Source 16 is a Google Drive link to a copy of a newspaper; my instincts tell me this is some sort of copyvio. Just cite the issue and don't link it, or find a new link.
  • Done
• Quotenmeter (used twice) seems to be a blog with no clear reliability; I'd find better sources.
  • Replaced both usages with better sources.
• Since episode 3x12 used households for ratings, don't put it into the chart at the bottom (it implies a false dropoff).
  • Done
• More ratings for season 1 would be nice – maybe try searching databases at WP:TWL if you have time?
  • I've been scouring the internet and old newspaper articles for a few weeks now trying to find ratings for these episodes but have been unsuccessful. Unfortunately it appears that at the time Nielsen only published viewing data for the Top 10 Cable series and the Sopranos did not qualify for much of its first season.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 I have addressed all comments. Newtothisedit (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only remaining update is that The Sopranos still needs to be italicized at the start of what's now source 13. I'll assume that will get done and will support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thought I had earlier but I guess not. Newtothisedit (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support--金色黎明 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (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. Since you're using template, in the {{Episode table}} template in the season sub-articles, visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text as a parameter of the template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • I believe I have fixed this--Newtothisedit (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Ellen White is England Women's top scorer who also played for GB at 2x Olympics, recently retired. I've spent a few weeks on the list and I think it covers everything well, I mostly referred to Alfredo Di Stéfano's equivalent as its slightly uncommon to have played for two nations. As with most of these kind of lists, problems are usually systematic and an easy fix. Much appreciated :) Idiosincrático (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be tempted to use the uncropped version of the lead image, as IMO landscape images work better in the lead and the existing one looks very small. Not a deal-breaker, though
• Image caption: "she played 113 games for England and eight for Great Britain at two Summer Olympics" reword so it doesn't sound like all 121 games took place at the Olympics
• "White would win the 2022 UEFA Women's Championship" => "White won the 2022 UEFA Women's Championship"
• "She would score her first international hat-trick" => "She scored her first international hat-trick"
• "She'd score a second hat-trick" => "She scored a second hat-trick"
• "White would score her final goal" => "White scored her final goal"
• "She announced her international retirement on the 22 August 2022" => "She announced her international retirement on 22 August 2022"
• "She played all four matches for Great Britain at the tournament before being knocked out" - reword as she wasn't personally knocked out
• Dutch needs a capital D
• "Despite scoring a hat-trick, Great Britain would leave the tournament" => "Although she scored a hat-trick, Great Britain left the tournament"
• Wikilink the Australian team in the last sentence of the lead
• Second image caption should not have a full stop as it isn't a complete sentence
• Is it normal to link only the stadia in these lists, not the location? I don't think places like Doncaster are so internationally well-known that a link is not needed under whatever the policy is (I can't remember) that says not to link well-known place names
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @ChrisTheDude, I addressed most things. I didn't wikilink the Australian team in the last sentence of the lead as I already linked it within the second lead para, as I did with Latvia and the 2020 tournament when I mentioned them a second time. Please let me know if I've done something wrong there. As for the stadia location links, I wasn't too sure either. Other international goal articles are all inconsistent, including featured lists. I did however notice someone refer to MOS:GEOLINK to justify having only having the stadia linked but I'm not entirely sure if that applies here. I'd be happy todo either. Cheers again. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd personally suggest linking the towns unless they are massively well-known ones like London..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Done @ChrisTheDude, Cheers. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Phikia (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- 金色黎明 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Featured LIsts in this list series are linked in the "See also" section; those lists and their WP:FLC discussions do a pretty good job of covering the story so far. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil: pinging per your request. I don't like to ping from the start because that might be seen as avoiding scrutiny from other reviewers ... but there's been more than enough time for scrutiny on this one :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a second ping, @Ceoil, because I just remembered I don't entirely trust "[[User:X]]" as a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus, I see you're in and out, so no rush on this but: you offered in another FLC to review one of mine ... if you still want to do that, this might be the one you'll want ... it's shorter (just 16 rows) and easier than most of the others. If this one already has three reviews by the time you see this ping, then a good second choice would be WP:Featured list candidates/List of early-diverging flowering plant families/archive1 (whenever that link turns blue). - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, the answer to yesterday's Final Jeopardy! was "Sam Houston", which reminded me about your excellent work on Margaret Lea Houston ... and then I realized I hadn't bumped into you over here at FLC in a while. If you've got anything coming up that needs a review, please let me know. In the meantime ... you might be interested in this list series, and in this list in particular ... it's short! Like I said above, if this one gets 3 reviews before you get a chance to look at it, then a good second choice would be WP:Featured list candidates/List of early-diverging flowering plant families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank, I did an image review for you below. Nice to be back over here. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've always enjoyed your lists, I'll keep an eye out for them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a navigation box and added it to the See also section. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "But unlike the core eudicots, these orders sometimes" - I'd suggest not starting a sentence with "but"
• "The national flower of India and Vietnam is the sacred lotus, and the floral emblem of the Australian state of New South Wales is the waratah." - I'd reverse this to "The sacred lotus is the national flower of India and Vietnam [etc]"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, both done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Telopea aspera inflorescence.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Arabis voch1-4.jpg - - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Dillenia indica Flower1-AD.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Dillenia indica - Elephant Apple at Kakkayam dam (4).jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Devils Strawberry (3278834731).jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Gunnera Magellanica.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Myrothamnus flabellifolius04.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Myrothamnus flabellifolius02.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Барбарис обыкновенный (лат. Berberis vulgaris) 1.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Berberis vulgaris kz03.jpg, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Staelen - Haus Caen 10 ies.jpg - on Commons,transferred from da.wikipedia to Commons.
• Buxus-sempervirens.JPG - on Commons,transferred from da.wikipedia to Commons. Original uploader was Sten Porse at da.wikipedia
• Circaeaster agrestis 7 Yunnan, China Photo Magnus Lidén.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Euptelea pleiosperma Olszanka chińska 2019-07-20 01.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Euptelea pleiosperma Olszanka chińska 2019-07-20 05.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Lardizabala biternata kz2.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Lardizabala biternata (flowers) Inao Vásquez 001 (cropped).jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain
• Moonseed fruit 1.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Menispermum canadense, 2015-06-02, Frick Park, 02.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• GyodaAncientlotus.jpg- on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Fleur de lotus sacré.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• 2020-06-08 Red poppies, Middle Street, Trimingham, Norfolk.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• 20180518Papaver rhoeas2.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Platanus orientalis tree.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Fruits of Platanus orientalis.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• A Protea cynaroides King Protea Fynbos South Africa 3.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Flower-Protea01.jpg - - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• 2021-04-28 14 46 25 Buttercups blooming in the grass median of Centreville Road in Oak Hill, Fairfax County, Virginia.jpg- on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Creeping buttercup during the Spring.jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Meliosma simplicifolia 10.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Meliosma simplicifolia - Simple-Leaved Meliosma at Periya 2018 (5).jpg - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Trochodendron aralioides 09072.JPG - on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer
• Trochodendron aralioides 09071-2.jpg- on Commons, released to Public Domain by the photographer

• Support -- Nice work, images all good. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in the review, I've been quite ill over the past few weeks but I can do a review now:

• What does " interrelated families " mean? How is it different than related? Are they a clade (share a common ancestor)? What exactly makes them "interrelated"?
  • It was a coin toss for me whether "interrelated" or "related" was better ... I've changed it to "related". The basal eudicots (in the strict sense) don't make up a clade, they're sister groups. But I don't think it would help to say that; the term doesn't really mean much more than "related". - Dank (push to talk)
• Along with the comment above, maybe a sentence on the evolutionary significance of "basal". I would assume this refers to early branches in plant evolution that more closely resemble early plants, but that would be my assumption only.
  • The third paragraph says "basal in the usual sense (they diverged at an early stage from the other eudicots)". That's my understanding of what "basal" means, at least in this context.
• "was cultivated thousands"-> do you mean was "first" cultivated? It is still cultivated in this region today.
  • If I say "was first cultivated thousands of years ago in Mesopotamia", won't readers think that I'm saying that Mesopotamia was the first place it was cultivated? My sources don't say that, and they don't fix a time of first cultivation, either.
• Perhaps you can add Edible to the Macadamia nut sentence. Every other sentence has a "function" for the plant, except this one. Or if there is a specific word for grow that relates exclusively to food, I just can't think of one now.
  • I added "agriculturally"; agricultural nuts are generally grown for food or oil, and this also suggests the large scale of the operations.
• Seems strange to place the order after the family in the arrangement of columns, but I don't want to interfere with the formats of other tables you've made. Consistency is important in an encyclopedia!
  • I'm not following. Every list in this series is a "List of ... families". Whatever you're trying to make a list of generally goes in the first column at FLC ... doesn't it?
• " not usually included in the basal eudicots," would be useful to explain why this is the case, otherwise it just sounds like a mystery.
  • I've reworded it a little bit, see if that works.
• Buxaceae is found in antarctica? Are you sure? :)
  • Fixed.

Overall an excellent article! Mattximus (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Hope you're feeling better! - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus? Anything else? - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support those are all the suggestions I could think of! Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. What a near-perfect article! Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for looking at this one. You've got two supports already and one more has offered to review; if that third review turns out to be comprehensive, then you won't usually need a fourth review to get a promotion. The list looks good to me at a first glance; I'll take another look in a couple of weeks to make sure things are moving along, but at the moment, I'm not expecting any hold-ups. I'll be happy to review your next nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 10:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Up to the usual standard of research, writing and illustration. My structural comments on earlier noms in the series are all met here. Only quibble is re "cultivars of Buxus are used for hedges and topiary" - these or other orders are also used for cooking, baking and various carvings (I later read). Have tried over last few days to come up with better complaints, but you have hit a stride, and that's it for me. Have made trivial ces/dabs. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly. I moved the "the high-quality wood is commonly used" sentence up to the introduction ... I hope that fixes it. You've done several reviews for me now ... let me know if I can help with any reviewing or writing for you. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 07:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I created this page above 50,000 bytes, citing the addition of more awards and sorting; and the reference overhaul, especially WP:SECONDARY sources. The table I improved is Toy Story 4 (the parent article), before I split into a separate list article about the film's accolades. Chompy Ace 07:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - sorry, but I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Couldn’t see anything wrong with it. Good job! QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, I just think reference 24 was archived incorrectly as the URL doesn't match the archived link. But other than that looks good. Support! Idiosincrático (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short nomination page, but I'm not seeing anything either. Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basshunter videograhy was previously nominated after successful nomination of Basshunter discography. It previously passed GOCE. Structure is after similar featured lists. Since previous nomination a lot of primary sources to YouTube were replaced with a secondary sources. Eurohunter (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="230" rowspan="2"| Title becomes !scope=col width="230" rowspan="2"| Title. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Right now you have on for the "Peak chart positions" cell, but none of the others
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Thanks. Added scope="col".  Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Series of music videos with Aylar Lie received media attention" - when were these released and why did they receive media attention?
  •  Comment: Mainly 2008-2009. Music videos received media attention due to she was a model and music videos had commercial success like high number of views. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Basshunter has appeared in television, including involvement in the ninth episode" - "involvement" is redundant.
  •  Done. Removed: "Basshunter has appeared in television, including the ninth episode (...)". Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "a Rock and Pop episode of Weakest Link." - what's a "Rock and Pop" episode?
  •  Done. It was episode attended by celebrities. "attended by celebrities" added at the end. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rendition shows a Basshunter singing about playing Dota 2" - which rendition are we talking about?
  •  Done. It was supposed to mean trailer Basshunter Dota Revival. I have changed it to "Trailer shows a Basshunter singing about playing Dota 2 (...)". Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes CelebMix a high-quality reliable source? Zickma?
  •  Comment:. Zickma was just added to replace reference to YouTube music video uploaded officially by artist so there is published news than just original source. Zickma is a French media website and has few thousands of followers on Facebook and Twitter and it exists atleast since 2012. They has own editors. British CelebMix was established in 2015 and as non-profit organisation is widely used as reference in ENWP and not only [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. It has dozen thousands followers in social media and its Twitter profile was verified. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin. According to Linkedin Jason Warner from CelebMix works also for BBC. They has its own editors like Jonathan Currinn, Randy Radic, Toby Bryant, Kelly McFarland, Philip Logan or Emily Severn. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of followers of a website doesn't determine their reliability (Daily Mail has over 16m followers on Facebook and it is one of the worst sources you can use on Wikipedia). Nor does its usage in other Wikipedias or articles, see WP:OSE. What does make a source reliable is if they have a proper fact-checking process, are owned by a reputable publication or are mentioned in news articles that say the website is noteworthy/reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. @FrB.TG: How to determine if Retuers, BBC, CNN or The Guardian has a proper fact-checking process? Seems to not be easy in case of The Guardian as there is no obvious confirmation. How to find news articles that say the website is noteworthy/reliable? Do such articles even exist? Probably I can remember such articles but they are random. There is no articles about every reliable news media. Eurohunter (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. These published articles were added to support original references. For example Apple Music, Spotify or Netflix releases etc. so I added Zickma and CelebMix to include published article with link to Apple Music release insteaad of just pure link to Apple Music release. Eurohunter (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Reuters, BBC, CNN etc. are well-established, reputed publications and their reliability has been discussed in great details on Wikipedia, see their listings at WP:RSP. For such sources, it is very easy to find other third-party sources confirming their reputability (e.g. see Irish Independent saying "Reuters is a reputable agency and rarely gets these things wrong").

2. The point of third-party sources mentioning the music video is to establish its notability but if the sources in question are not reliable to begin with, you are better off sticking with the YouTube links for such videos. FrB.TG (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced Zickma with YouTube for now. Eurohunter (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still stand by my statement that CelebMix is an unreliable source. For starters, they don't even have an "About us" page where one puts basic information like what the website does, when it was founded and how they gather their information. FrB.TG (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. References to CelebMix were removed. @FrB.TG: Eurohunter (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me once these concerns are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Your comments have been taken into account. I need further comments from you, regarding the above points. Eurohunter (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: What do you think about? Eurohunter (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have made several copyedits here. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What the heck is a "second version"?
  •  Comment: If you release music video for a track - it's music video. If you release the second music video for the same track - this is the second version or? Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a music video. Not sure there's any need to separate them out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done @ChrisTheDude: Integrated. Eurohunter (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "17 music videos [....] two remix videos" - videos for remixes are still music videos, I see no reason to mention them separately?
  •  Comment: It's kind of release so that's why they are included. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a music video. Not sure there's any need to separate them out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: @ChrisTheDude: It's like listing songs or singles with its remixes in one table. Eurohunter (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Basshunter released the music video for "Every Morning" and "I Promised Myself"" => "Basshunter released the music videos for "Every Morning" and "I Promised Myself""
  •  Done Changed to "Basshunter released the music videos for "Every Morning" and "I Promised Myself"". Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Constructions such as "Michael Jackson released", "Alan Walker released" or "Basshunter released" actually sounds like he released them personally (self-release) but these videos were released by music label. I don't know if it's characteristics of English or a widespread error that no one pays attention to. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "A series of music videos with Aylar Lie received media attention" - when? Any why?
  •  Comment: Mainly 2008-2009. Music videos received media attention due to she was a model and music videos had commercial success like high number of views. Eurohunter (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then say that in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment: @ChrisTheDude:. There is next sentence ""Now You're Gone" became the most-viewed from the British YouTube videos in 2008[3] and third most-viewed YouTube video with 65 millions of views in 2009". Eurohunter (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Now You're Gone" became the most-viewed from the British YouTube videos in 2008" - what does this mean? It wasn't a British video if he is Swedish
  •  Comment: Yes but it was uploaded to channel of Hard2BeatRecords which was British label and due to was classified as British video. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "He appeared on Maspalomas Pride 2012 box-set" => "He appeared on the Maspalomas Pride 2012 box-set"
  •  Done Added "the". Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Basshunter has appeared in television" - in English you appear on television, not in it
  •  Done Changed "in television" to "on television". Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "a Rock and Pop episode of Weakest Link attended by celebrities" - not good English at all. Just say "a Rock and Pop celebrity episode of Weakest Link"
  •  Done Great idea. Added "a Rock and Pop celebrity episode of Weakest Link". Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2021 he appeared in Basshunter Dota Revival Netflix's trailer for Dota: Dragon's Blood." => "In 2021 he appeared in Basshunter Dota Revival, Netflix's trailer for Dota: Dragon's Blood."
  •  Done Added coma after Basshunter Dota Revival. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does the table say the director for the DotA video is unknown? The footnote says who it was
  •  Comment: Luna Square is a company credited as director but this is field for directors (persons). Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Music video for "Melody" was assembled by Farbod Khoshtinat" - what does this mean? How do you "assemble" a music video?
  •  Comment: It's actually credited as "assembled by". This music video consist of unspecified number of short videos which were edited. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Special version of album released in New Zealand and Poland contains DVD with nine Basshunter music videos." - this doesn't need a full stop
  •  Comment: I don't think so. In this case it's standard sentence which should end with full stop. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Box set contains live recordings of various artists." - this also doesn't need a full stop
  •  Comment: Same case as above. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note f - "Also censored version of "Dream on the Dancefloor" music video was released (uncredited)." should be "Censored version of "Dream on the Dancefloor" music video was also released (uncredited)."
  •  Done Changed to "Censored version of "Dream on the Dancefloor" music video was also released (uncredited).". Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Same with the note g
  •  Done Changed in both cases. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In those last two, what does "(uncredited)" mean?
  •  Comment: The censored version doesn't appear in the description or title, just like in cases of film credits where actor appears in film but is not mentioned in credits. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. Your comments have been taken into account. Further comments on the above points are required. Eurohunter (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: What do you think? Eurohunter (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting here for a long time; it's gotten less attention then I'd usually like, but I've read through it and aside from a small tweak I made I'm good to promote. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the 2022 Creative Arts ceremony at multiple supports at FLC, here's the main ceremony from that year. This ceremony could feel like more of the same, though there were some pleasant surprises. The list is modeled off the 72nd and 73rd ceremonies, both FLs. As always, any feedback is much appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "than any other network/platform": per MOS:SLASH, if "than any other network or platform" would work, use that (unless there's something going on here that I don't know about).
• "but only won 26 this year": "this" becomes a MOS:CURRENT problem when you're talking about 2022 in 2023 (because it would be natural for many readers to assume you literally mean "this year"). Reword.
• I have no idea what's going on with the license for File:210305 이정재.jpg since I don't read Korean. I don't know if it's a problem or not.
  • I'm assuming you are referring to the link, which has been fixed. If not, let me know.
    • For this, I'll ping a coord (below). - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have any preference on where to sort "The 64th Annual Grammy Awards" ... you've got it under "G". That's not usually what I see at WP:FLC.
  • I was copying them based on how the sources order them, and they seem to sort by "Grammy" (same with the Tonys, Golden Globes, etc.).
    • Okay, now I see "DEFAULTSORT:Grammy Awards" at the bottom of the page. Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Beatles: Get Back": Sort it under "B".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. By the time you see this, I may have done a little copyediting ... if so, feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool 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 (except as mentioned above).
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I left a few comments to clarify; thanks as always for your review! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PresN: I can't tell if File:210305 이정재.jpg would normally pass an image review, in part since I don't read Korean but also because of the image source (YouTube). I don't know if it's a problem or not, and I'm not even sure who to ask about this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      @Dank: YouTube screenshots are allowed as long as the video where it was taken from was released under Creative Commons. In this case, the video source has a CC license. According to YouTube's help page, videos will be marked under a CC BY 3.0 license, which is allowed per Commons:Licensing. Harushiga (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not really sure what an FLC-level image review is supposed to be ... I just know that, in harder cases, whatever it is, it's above my pay grade, and I need to yell for help, as I did here. I'm sure RunningTiger knows image rules better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Forgot to ask for help with my noms ... List of early-diverging flowering plant families could use a review. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81

• This looks like a very comprehensive list that was well cited with reliable sources. I think the only thing I could point is that for Los Angeles Times which require subscription should have url-access=subscription utilized. Although, interestingly enough, when I view LA Times articles using Chrome or Microsoft Edge, I'm able to access one article per day. However, when I use Chrome's Private/Incognito mode, I don't have access to said articles unless I'm a subscriber. So, that one you may have to ask The Rambling Man for that. Also, somebody changed the URL access of the New York Times articles used in the 94th Academy Awards from url-access=limited to url-access=subscription. According to Rambling Man from a previous FLC, it should be "limited". So I don't know if you have to change the NY Times ones from "subscription" to "limited" since NY Times allows like 3-5 articles for free daily.
• That being said, I'm giving this ceremony article a Support. Great job.

--Birdienest81talk 05:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 21:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, promoted. --PresN 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We continue our journey through the thousands of animal species in mammalia with number 24 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (10 lists for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 3 lists for Lagomorpha, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, Scandentia, Macroscelidea, and Afrosoricida). For this one we go to Australia with a single-order list for Dasyuromorphia, aka most of the carnivorous marsupials of that continent. Most of these 72 species are small insect-eaters, except for the two big ones: the Tasmanian devil, and the extinct thylacine, but all of them will eat pretty much any creatures they can get their mouths around. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "while the thylacine ate larger mammals and livestock" - I would change this to "and the thylacine ate larger mammals and livestock"
• No need to relink thylacine in the last para of the lead
• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Both done, thanks! --PresN 18:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Always a good read 10/10 Idiosincrático (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportGood Job - 金色黎明 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that the cladogram is also being pushed below the number of species list in the classification section, creating massive whitespace. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, now it's doing the same for me (I use monobook), but only at zooms of 120% or higher. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm using the Vector 2010 at regular width. There was a similar problem with List of afrosoricids, but not with List of macropodiformes, weirdly. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dank and SilverTiger12: Fixed, I think. --PresN 19:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Much better, thank you! Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I just noticed- the section headings for this list seem to be different from other orders i.e. List of carnivorans, where the order is the main header with the suborders as sub-headers, and then families as sub-sub-headers- shouldn't here also have the Dasyumorphs as the section header, with the families as subsections and subfamilies as sub-subsections? SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @SilverTiger12: You are correct- the family headers should be one level down, below the existing Dasyuromorphs header. Now fixed. --PresN 20:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it works for me now at 120%. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the sources are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool showed no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea has 15 World Heritage Sites, among them there are several temples, palaces, castles, as well as natural features. Standard style for WHS lists. The other nomination currently open, the list for Malaysia, is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new one. Tone 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was burned down during the Japanese invasion in the 16th century, soon after reconstructed" => "It was burned down during the Japanese invasion in the 16th century, but reconstructed soon afterwards"
• "The fortress has remained largely intact to present day" => "The fortress has remained largely intact to the present day"
• "The excavations of the tombs produces rich gold" => "The excavation of the tombs produced rich gold"
• "It contains a lake-filled crater, waterfalls, and exhibits" => "It contains a lake-filled crater and waterfalls, and exhibits"
• "The ancestor worship rituals were held regularly" => "Ancestor worship rituals were held regularly"
• "The setting of the villages in the mountainous setting" - can we avoid saying "setting" twice? Suggest replacing the second one with "location"
• "Over 400 kilns have operated in the area, some of them have been preserved" => "Over 400 kilns have operated in the area, some of which have been preserved"
• "It is important stop" => "It is an important stop"
• "Even if they shared similar culture" => "Although they shared similar culture"
• "Even if it fell into disrepair" => "Although it fell into disrepair" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks for checking! Tone 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two sites are natural, these are Getbol and the Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes." – comma splice
  • Still a comma splice
• "80 000 wooden printing blocks" – per MOS:DIGITS, if you use spaces to group numbers, use {{val}} or {{gaps}}
  • Template not used correctly (see documentation)
• "South North" – I'm guessing the linked words got messed up on this one?
  • Link for South Jeolla actually points to North Jeolla now
• IABot missed a few sources when archiving

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks! Fixed. The bot is currently not responding, I will try later. Not sure why it did not archive all sources, I think it sometimes does that. Tone 08:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not sure what I was doing yesterday :) Second try, please check. Tone 12:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comma splice still wasn't fixed, but I took care of it. Everything else is good; happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, 10/10 good stuff. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this simple: this is an easy support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every citation is to UNESCO itself. As such, the sources are reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this occasion, I will assume good faith and forego the spotcheck. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 10:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia has four sites on the World Heritage Sites list and six on the tentative list. Standard style and formatting. The list for Sri Lanka is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other sites date to different periods of Paleolithic and Neolithic" => "Other sites date to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods"
• "dated to be about 10 000 years old" => "dated to be about 10,000 years old"
• "Many animal and plan species" - is that a typo for "plant"?
• "with over 2 400 patients at its peak" => "with over 2,400 patients at its peak"
• "to live as close as normal as possible" => "to live as close to normal as possible"
• "between 35 000 and 40 000 years old" => "between 35,000 and 40,000 years old"
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The second lead paragraph seems a little sparse.
• Should Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca be singular? (as it is in its own article)
• The two sites listed in 2000 are natural, the other two are cultural Two independent clauses can't be linked with just a comma
• at least one of the criteria --> "at least one criterion" (moreso a suggestion - it's up to you ofc)
• the oldest most complete human skeleton I don't know what this means... Is it supposed to be "oldest and most complete" or "oldest mostly complete" or something else?
• remains of continuous human occupation maybe change to "evidence of..." to avoid repetition of "remains"

That's all. ~ HAL333 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Tone 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Your first sentence is different from others. "...which have been nominated by countries which are signatories..." is a bit awkward; the second "which" should be "that", but maybe go back to a simpler wording like before.
• The second and third sentences should be parallel: "Cultural heritage consists of..." and then "Natural heritage [includes][consists of]..." instead of the latter being reversed.
• "As of 2022" isn't necessary, this isn't something likely to be out of date soon.
• "while the most recent one" -> "and". These statements are complimentary, not contrasting.
• "Malaysia has served" -> "Malaysia served"
• "in the years 2011–2015" -> "from 2011 to 2015", we can tell they're years.
• Kinabalu Park: point out that it's Malaysia's tallest mountain
• Having written many descriptions in my national park lists I know it's hard to summarize a place's diversity comprehensively and concisely, but "In addition to diverse flora, the area is also home to several species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles" is awfully vague. Maybe point out the orchids or other specific plant or animal types, or tie the vegetation zones to the diversity.
• Mulu: "both due its" -> "due to both its"
• Malacca: in the early 16th century -> starting in
• 1.83 million year old" needs hyphens

Nice work again! Reywas92^Talk 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thanks for checking! Tone 09:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another easy support. All the citations are to UNESCO, and I'm going to forego the spotchecks on account of the nominator's previous competence. Godspeed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the World Cup list gaining some support, I'm now nominating the equivalent list for the European Championships, the primary international tournament on the continent. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since then, no manager has won the title on more than one occasion" - that kinda reads like Kachalin did win it more than once. Just say "No manager has won the title on more than one occasion"
• "Schön, along with Vicente del Bosque, are the only managers" - not grammatically correct. Should be simply "Schön and Vicente del Bosque are the only managers"
• "Joachim Löw, along with Lars Lagerbäck, holds the record" - this makes it sound like Low somehow has the primary claim to the record and Lagerback is secondary. Just say "Joachim Löw and Lars Lagerbäck jointly hold the record"
• Image caption: "Helmut Schön of Germany (left) and Vicente del Bosque of Spain (middle) are the only two managers to have won the European Championships and the FIFA World Cup" - Championships has suddenly become plural whereas it's singular everywhere else
• Also image caption: "Roberto Mancini of Italy (right), is the most recent manager to have won the tournament." - no reason for that comma
• "and all winning managers have won it with their native countries, with the exception of German coach Otto Rehhagel leading Greece to victory in 2004" - the ref against the sentence does not confirm this. Similarly it's used as a source for the whole table but does not confirm the managers' nationalities

The source states, "Otto Rehhagel is the only coach to have won a EURO with a foreign team..." which I would consider confirming the above. I can try and find another source if it's still an issue. The source does provide the nationalities for the managers, it lists them next to the manager in the list of winning coaches. I've added another ref that confirms the teams they managed. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably Slovakia is in the "by nationality" table because of Václav Ježek? But he was born in what is now Czech Republic, not Slovakia.

Article states he was born in Zloven and clicking through to that article it says it's in central Slovakia. I was a bit conflicted with how to represent this though. I think it's standard practice to list current countries in the by nationality table and the countries they represented at the time in the by year table. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed your comments and left a few points above for two of them. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - apologies, I misread Ježek's place of death as being his place of birth - d'oh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, really nice Idiosincrático (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NapHit, please find my comments below:

Lead

• José Villalonga is the youngest manager → correct link José Villalonga

Winning managers table

• 2016 row → correct link to Fernando Santos (footballer, born 1954)

References

• Ref 8 → The BBC Sport articles cites that Villalonga was the youngest manager to win the European Cup / Champions League but does not state that specifically mention that he the youngest manager win the European Championship.

That is referenced by ref 5 that precedes ref 8. I'm using the BBC link as it confirms he managed Spain during the tournament which I'm not sure the UEFA source explicitly states. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs needs archive links per WP:DEADREF and works to be linked eg The New York Times

Images

• All images are free to use and have alt text. All good

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments @Ianblair23:, I've addressed them all with the exception of the links for works as I was always under the impression whether they were linked or not was down to personal preference. Is there a specific guideline that says this needs to be done? NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't find anything to critique, great list.--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, works don't have to be linked as long as you're consistent, promoting. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been overhauled to provide a complete list of all British armies raised (real and fictional) that were formed during the Second World War. A member of the Guild of Copyeditors has also given the list the once over.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Battle of the Bulge

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles on the Third Army and Fifth Army don't cover these imaginary army at all - should they even be linked?

  Personally, I think so. Prior to the list being overhauled, only the Fourth Army was included and I would guess that was because its deception efforts were best known. The others are kind of sidenotes in the literature. I have added a small note to both articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Half way down the page, the notes column changes from centre-aligned to left and then back again

  I have left aligned this entire column now. If you think it should be centred, I can do that too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Imperial War Museum wrote the insignia" => "The Imperial War Museum wrote that the insignia"
• "The museum noted versions of this initial design exist" => "The museum noted that versions of this initial design exist"
• "It was intended the Fourteenth Army would" => "It was intended that the Fourteenth Army would"
• "See below list for complete breakdown." looks weird below the list in question. I would be tempted to just lose these words.
• "as each division completed its [singular] training and were [plural] fully equipped"
• "It was envisioned the final territorial division" => "It was envisioned that the final territorial division"

  I have made changes to hopefully address the above various points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your time, review, and comments. I have attempted to address all and welcome any further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

• Can a link to the 13 June 1945 edition of The Times be provided?

  Not sure if the link would work in the article citation, but if you have access to Gale, it is located here: link. It talks about the Second Army becoming part of the occupation force.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest removing the Third and Fifth Armies from the list and lead given they didn't even exist as deception formations. This might warrant an end note or short section on other armies attributed to the British Army during the war? The article is a bit confused at the moment with these non-existant formations being included in the table. The Germans believed all kinds of weird things about the Allied order of battle due to their dysfunctional intelligence services and Allied deception campaigns.

  Fair point. I have amended the lede and removed the two armies from the list. I have moved their mention into the note that also includes the British Indian armies.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was intended that the Fourteenth Army would be used to land in and liberate British Malaya, but the war ended before that occurred." - the landings did actually occur, just after the Japanese surrender (see Operation Zipper) as it was considered easiest to use the forces assembled for the operation and the prepared plans than to develop new plans at short notice.

  I have tweaked the wording to include a combat landing (which I believe was the point I was trying to convey) and also noted their peaceful arrival instead (IWM mentions that, so no need for additional sourcing).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Was Malaya Command considered an Army? It was led by a Lieutenant-General and was of equivalent size and structure. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, I am not an expert in this area (Far East and army terminology), but the OH War Against Japan describes the command as one that was "designed for the control of a small garrison" and not "adjusted to enable it to cope efficiently with the changed and increased load placed upon it" (acknowledgement that it was not? and that it became one?). It also uses language similar to how Middle East Command (MEC) is discussed, such as exercising authority over multiple geographical locations (at least British Malaya, Thailand, and Borneo - although all its troops were in Malaya) and the RN and RAF linking their commands for the defense of the area. MEC, for example, saw the establishment of a triumvirate of the three branches and oversaw operations from Egypt to Aden etc. I was unable to find mention in the OH of an attempt to form a field army.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your time reviewing the article and providing the above comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Those changes look good, and I'm happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although this nomination has not recieved as many reviews as we often look for, I've reviewed it myself and I'm happy to promote. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who are intelligent and interested in the material, but lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject, without sacrificing accuracy, dumbing the subject down or talking down to people. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. We'll see. Thanks as (almost) always to Johnboddie for selecting the images and doing some of the work on "description and uses". - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, this is the last time I'm pinging everyone who's commented in reviewed any of the previous lists in this series (except Aza, ChrisTheDude, Giants and PresN): @AryKun, CaptainEek, Casliber, Ceoil, Eewilson, HAL333, RunningTiger123, The ed17, and Umimmak: Thanks all for your reviews. Now that you folks have helped me work out the bugs in this list series, it shouldn't be too hard for me to keep getting reviews (it usually works to review other people's stuff at FLC), but I don't want to invite people to review until they've got two nominations to look at, and per FLC rules, I need one more support on this one before I can nominate the next one, if anyone's got some time to spare. (The four lists that have been promoted so far are linked in the "See also" section of this list, if that helps.) Any drive-by comments are also welcome, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fast, thx Ceoil. FWIW, everyone, two of the next three lists in the series (basal eudicots and Saxifragales) are going to be very short, 15 and 16 rows, if anyone wants to take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Actinidia, I'm verifying here that I've checked everything. Licensing:

• 45 are "own work" or equivalent with no indication at all that they aren't. 6 licenses were verified by the Flickr bot and 4 by the iNaturalist bot.
• The two illustrations are very old; no copyright problems.
• Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is (now) always present, and spare but acceptable.
• Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have enough earned trust that this is fine. Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never get tired of hearing that :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to be pinged for these noms.

• don't like that we start with "since 2019" rather than a general definition. Its pacey, but sort of off-centering. That said, you prob know your target audience and their dept of knowledge better than me.
• related....find the "Glossary" very helpful
• The basal asterids are highly diverse, but there are a few visible traits that can be linked to many of the families - "The basal asterids are highly diverse, but do not have many visible traits linking the families"?
• I would punctuate a lot more in the list itself, eg at the end of Mushroom-like parasites without chlorophyll that feed on tree roots should have a full stop/period.
• Some of the paired images are out of sync...eg when one is landscape and one is portrait and thus much longer.
• Leaning support Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great ideas. All done except the final full stops/periods ... I don't have a preference, you can add or subtract, whatever looks right to you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was watching (& since added a few full stops). Support; another visually stunning and informative page from the series. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, and John says thanks too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ye make a great team. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing:

• ...ring-like nectaries, and cymes, inflorescences in which each lateral stalk either terminates in a flower or branches itself. That last part, where it expands on the meaning of cymes, is a bit confusing because it almost looks like another item in the list. Maybe adding "which are" right before "inflorescences"?

That's all. There could be other things, but I'll leave them to others if there are. Being on a mostly-Wikibreak right now makes my eyes gloss over. :) Great job! Support, with that clarification. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikibreaks are important, but I'm always happy for your input :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staking out a spot for when I can review tomorrow. ~ HAL333 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: ? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've been AWOL on Wikipedia due to "real"-life demands. Here's what I got:

• "Heathlands, a typical habitat for some species in Ericaceae, the heather family." isn't a sentence.
  • MOS:CAPFRAG says "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop." Does that cover this case?
• Is "from the others" redundant?
  • Happy to go with whatever you decide.
• Could the lead be expanded? If you have to fluff it up, dont bother. :)
  • Look at what I did with List of Saxifragales families ... I moved the existing second paragraph down to the Glossary section, and created a new paragraph with "highlights" of some of the families. If that's the kind of expansion you're looking for, that works for me.
  • Back. Okay, yes, I'll get to work on this after breakfast. Good idea.
  • @HAL333: I've made the same changes to this list that I made in List of Saxifragales families, adding a list of relevant plants to the intro that many readers are familiar with, and moving part of the intro down into the first section. (Per a request over at the other FLC, I also merged the Legend info into the main table.) See if this works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The Oxford comma is used in some places and not in others.
  • I never mind being asked, since I miss these sometimes, but I don't see any of them in the table. The last sentence in the lead Glossary section includes: "as well as anthers attached at their base, ring-like nectaries, and cymes, which are inflorescences ...". If I left off the comma before "and cymes", then the "which" would become ambiguous (it might refer to the "ring-like nectaries and cymes").
  • If the comma is a problem, I can break this into two sentences.
• The nationalities and/or occupations of human namesakes are only sometimes listed. I would try to do so every time, if possible.
  • It's late, so I might not be thinking this through, but I'd rather not. The relevant note says "Some plants were named for naturalists (unless otherwise noted)" ... I can make that more prominent if that would help. What I'd rather not do is try to describe what someone was in one or a few words (beyond what the note says) ... it's generally more complicated than that, which the reader will find out if they click on the biography link and get the full story. I struggled with how to handle this for all the etymology lists, too, and discussed it, and wound up with this compromise ... I'd prefer to be consistent, so if I change it here, that's going to mean a lot of changes and judgment calls and mind-reading for a bunch of very long lists. But I'm open to suggestions.
  • Turns out I was right, I wasn't thinking it through :) I can put "naturalist" in front of the names rather than after. Doing that now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just undid this edit, after noticing that this change didn't entirely work here and won't work at all for most of these lists. The problem is that adding the word "naturalist" for each of these people invites an argument in each case over the best way to describe them. That's going to fail in a big way, eventually. Most of the one-word descriptions would be inadequate ... even one-sentence descriptions are going to be misinterpreted by many readers, without further explanation. They're all naturalists, and it's not misleading to say that ... further details can be found at the links for each human namesake. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The references are very clean.

That's all I noticed. Solid work. ~ HAL333 04:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good comments. Let me know if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Was there anything else? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 never returned to this after a month, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 13:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because I reworked the accolades table from the 24 Oras page, added more sources and archives, and reached above the 50k size. Chompy Ace 13:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It enjoyed consistently high viewership" - past tense? Does it not enjoy such viewership any more?
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Issues fixed. Chompy Ace 09:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - that was easy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox total for nominations seems to be one off
• "English: 24 Hours" → "English: 24 Hours"
• "to be accessed in the online video platform" – This sentence feels clunky to me. If it was the first to be streamed on TikTok, just say that instead of using awkward synonyms.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123 Issues fixed. Chompy Ace 20:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox total is now off by two – I think you went in the wrong direction. But that's small and I'm good to support now assuming that will be fixed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but I'll check back after the 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.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discography of Esmée Denters, who came to prominence after posting song covers on YouTube. After working on this discography for a few months, I believe it is now up to FL standards. Looking forward to your comments! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "who signed her with his record label" => "who signed her to his record label"
• "The song received a gold certification in New Zealand and a silver one in the United Kingdom" => "The song was certified gold in New Zealand and silver in the United Kingdom"
• "She was also a featuring artist" => "She was also a featured artist"
• "Under the mononym Esmée, 3 Beat Records released in the same year her single "It's Summer Because We Say So"" = > "In the same year, 3 Beat Records released her single "It's Summer Because We Say So", credited under the mononym Esmée"
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for reviewing! I believe I addressed everything. Sebbirrrr (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

Support. Found no major issues with the article. -- EN-Jungwon 13:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]