Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2024

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 09:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this Leap day, I am nominating a list that involves some leaps, or rather jumps. The Seattle Storm are one of the most successful WNBA teams, with four championships to their name, and have played through 24 seasons since their debut in 2000. This list of those seasons is modeled after existing FLs on NBA team seasons as well as more recent FLs on team seasons from other sports; it is also the fourth in my series of Seattle sports team lists after the Sounders, Seahawks, and Mariners. I believe it meets FL standards but am happy to make sweeping changes where necessary. SounderBruce 09:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
  • Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}} under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Seattle Times is subscription based, please use the url-access parameter to indicate this
  • Washington Post is subscription based, please use the url-access parameter to indicate this
  • Ref 17 – Work parameter should be "The News Tribune", not "The New Tribune"
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for
  • Fixed all of the citation issues and added the mdy template. SounderBruce 17:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

• Season sorts funny. The cells that have a background colour are sorting to the top.
  • Added a hidden sortkey to fix it.
• I'm thinking the rounds in the playoff results column could and probably should be sentence case instead of capitalized.
  • I am following the project norms for basketball rounds and think the title case works better here; as this issue has been particularly contentious as of late, I don't want to pick a side until the discussion is resolved.
• What determines what order you put put names into the award column? I'm looking at 2018 specifically and it looks like they're sorted by first name, whereas 2010 doesn't follow this.
  • The sorting is based on the name of the award, which has the added bonus of putting the most important award (MVP) first.
• Not a deal breaker at all, but would you consider adding abbreviation links in the awards column using Template:Abbrlink?
  • Added.
• Is there another picture or two you could add?
  • I don't think there's enough room for another picture, since the table is full width on a lot of lower resolution screens.

That's all I've got. Good work! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the review. I've replied to your comments and made the appropriate changes to the list. SounderBruce 17:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just have a large screen and see extra space for images! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

Overall the article looks pretty good, so I have just a few small things that I think need addressed.

• I recommend adding archives to all the refs
  • Waiting until all of the links do get archived, as the article is new and hasn't been picked up by the bot crawlers.
• but the team were eliminated in the Western Conference Semifinals - Should it be the team was eliminated? I know it can be kind of weird with sports teams, but "were" would make sense if it said "the Storm were eliminated", but using team, "was" definitely sounds more natural to me.
  • To maintain consistency in the use of plurals, "were" works best here.
• I'm not sure adding the 2024 season to the table adds much at this point. At least from what I've seen from other team seasons articles, that would make more sense to add after the 2024 season
  • Removed.

That's all I have. Like I said, overall it looks good. -- ZooBlazer 01:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: Thanks for the review, I've replied to your above comments. SounderBruce 03:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only thing not done is the one that can't be done yet, I'm happy to support since archives can easily be added when possible. Good work. -- ZooBlazer 03:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "based in based in Seattle, Washington" - some repeated words in there
• "but earned the top picks in the subsequent WNBA draft for two consecutive years" => "but earned the top pick in the subsequent WNBA draft for two consecutive years"
• That's it, I think. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for catching both issues. They have been fixed. SounderBruce 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And so we bring the history of Billboard's R&B/soul/black singles chart in the 1980s to a close, with a host of songs written by a guy who apparently had the face of a baby and a rare example of a song which topped this chart but failed to enter the Hot 100 at all. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and acted upon as speedily as humanly possible -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for
• The second and third links in the see also section are redirects, I suggest bypassing them.
• Everything looks to sort properly from my playing around

Support, great work as always Chris. On another note, is there a task force that can turn Ain't Nuthin' in the World into an article? It's clearly notable, but someone turned it into a redirect back in November, 2020. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The following week it was displaced by "Superwoman" -- comma after week
• the trio would only have one further chart-topper -- might be worth indicating what year (if not 1993)
• In June the hip hop trio -- comma after June
• which was taken from the soundtrack of the film "Do the Right Thing" -- If film title, I believe this should be in italics and without quotations
• That's all from me. Another great series. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - done! Thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looked and found nothing to quibble about. AryKun (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With my earlier nomination gaining substantial supports and a source/image review completed, here's a list of awards and nominations from a Filipino band. Ben&Ben started out as a duo before expanding into a nine-member ensemble and have released two studio albums and an extended play. Since their career began in 2016, they have earned multiple accolades for their work. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Ref 2 – Needs a publish date
  • Ref 2 & 7 – Same source, please combine them
  • Ref 9 – Suuuuper minor, but can you add a period after the author's "P" initial?
  • Ref 29 – Needs an author
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for

Thanks for catching all this silly lapses. I've fixed all Ref formatting concerns. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

• You used a scope of "rowgroup" in a number of places where you should have only used a scope of "row". Use rowgroup when rowspan is used and just row when it is not.

You're right, I missed to change this bit. Should be fix now.

• 2019 in the EDDY Awards row could link to The EDDYS#2019

Linked

• "Susi" (from the Eddy Award row) is not sorting properly

Sorted

• "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" is not sorting properly

Sorted

• Consider running iabot, as it appears a number of the sources are down (and appropriately tagged). Would help to future proof in case more sources end up no longer being at the destination.

I ran iabot and yielded

Links analyzed: 44

Links rescued: 0

Links tagged: 0

Links archived: 0

I think the CNN Philippines source is the one that is inactive now, as it has since shut down. But the archive still works though.

• Could you add anymore pictures? There's a lot of room beside the table and a couple of them there could be a significant improvement (not a deal breaker).

Unfortunately, there is very little in Wiki Commons to choose from. For awards list, from what I've checked, we generally do not add more than one image, as I think it tends to condense the width of the table (even those that use the collapsible infobox). [4] [5]. I think the exceptions for adding more images are list of songs, filmographies, discographies (but then again this is not a hard-and-fast rule)

• Year column might make more sense centered (in my opinion), but not a deal breaker

I kept this one as is, since all my previous awards list, the years have not been centered, and I've also looked at similar tables of more recent FLs and they seem to be (from what I can see) acceptable even if not centered. Hope this is fine. [6] [7] [8]

That's all I've got for now. Good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, and for catching those slips. I've addressed all comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm satisfied with all the answers. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Lead: "It spawned the singles" to "It included the singles"

Done

• Lead: "It was nominated for two Myx Music Awards with its accompanying music video" - add a comma after Music Awards. Also, "associated" or another synonym might read a bit better than "accompanying".

Dropped accompanying altogether since I think it still reads better without anything preceding it

• Lead: "In 2023, the band was recognized with a Best Choice Award – Music at the Asia Artist Award." "Asia Artist Awards".

Done

• Is there a better ref to replace #18, which is a post on the group's facebook page? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none the I could find which lists every (21) nominated work. Not even in the official awards page on Facebook where this is usually posted. For some reason, in 2022, the awards org announced the nominees via a live concert event and it wouldn’t be ideal to comb through an almost 2-hour long video.

Thanks for your review MPGuy2824. I’ve addressed your comments and provided my responses. Let me know if there’s anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a couple of tiny changes which it was easier just to make than to list here and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing and reviewing ChrisTheDude! I still miss those plural forms eh, even after working on three different articles on them, thanks for catching that. Appreciate your support as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reworked this list and split out the individual selections to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) due to page size and accessibility issues. The goal of this list is to provide a high-level summary of each Packers draft. Happy to address any issues or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, Hey man im josh, and ZooBlazer:, just a litlle update, I added linking to the table to the individual draft selections for each year. So a reader can then click on that link and see who exactly was selected. I assume this is a net-benefit, but just wanted to give you all the chance to take a look. See here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "became the Packers first draft selection" => "became the Packers' first draft selection"
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to link American football twice in the lead
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included" - use normal brackets not square brackets
  • Is there a style guide related to this on Wikipedia? Most style guides recommend avoiding nested parentheses and state to use brackets on the inside of parentheses. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The number of rounds peaked to 30" => "The number of rounds peaked at 30"
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "over a 7 year period" => "over a 7-year period"
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "selected All-Pro Dan Currie and Pro Football Hall of Famers " => "selected future All-Pro Dan Currie and future Pro Football Hall of Famers " (current wording could be taken to imply that they were already in the HoF when drafted)
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - I think just "in 1957 with Hornung" is fine
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Because the table is sortable, you need to link to List of second overall National Football League draft picks both time the Packers drafted second, not just the first time
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice, in 1957 with the aforementioned Hornung" - this contradicts the table, where it says they drafted 5th in that year
  • Their normal draft order that year was 4th, however as the recipient of the last "bonus lottery pick", they got a bonus 1st round pick. This is mentioned in the lead. Let me know if you think it warrants a note in the table itself (note, fifth was a typo, they were 4th). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude, responses noted above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude, let me know if you have any additional comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the CFL in square brackets still looks odd to me but I guess it's no big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review criteria and status: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Source review notes:

• I noticed Encyclopedia Britannica is Wikilinked, as are a number of other publishers. Could you Wikilink the first instance mentions for websites to keep it consistent?
• Ref 18, 19, and 28 – All use the same publisher as the source but each one uses a different variation, one with an underscore, one with a hyphen, and one with just spaces. Please make them consistent and unlink the latter two to be consistent with your wikilinking.
• Ref 23 – No publisher listed
• Ref 7 – Seattle Times is subscription based, needs url-access parameter
• Ref 7 – Add publish date

Other comments:

• Infobox has a link to "List of first round draft picks" but the target is List of...first-round draft picks"
• Earl Girard redirects to Jug Girard. Perhaps you should list this name there instead?
• Vito Parilli redirects to Babe Parilli. Same comment as above.
• Your date formatting is good and consistent, but could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}} under the short description? That way if anybody adds sources later on it should still end up properly displaying whatever date formats they use in refs.

That's what I've got. I found this formatting to be interesting for draft history and preferably over a whole list of picks at that article title instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the first. This may be personal preference, but generally when I use {{Cite web}}, I use the website field and write out the literal website without linking. However, if I use {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite encyclopedia}}, the link is ancillary (imho), as the work itself isn't necessarily digital. So typically in that case I would write out the work itself and link it (i.e. Sports Illustrated), because there is some relevance. {{Cite web}} says the work or website field is Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant. All this to say I think there is some wiggle room to leave the encyclopedia linked while not wikilinking anything that ends in ".com" or similar. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I respect that it's personal preference and we that we more or less focus on aiming for consistency in the formatting, but I didn't realize the logic you were using was based on the type of cite. Just for my own clarity so I know how to properly evaluate your lists moving forward, you're wikilinking in every ref that this applies to, or just the first occurrence in the type of references this applies to? I imagine some of these sources do strictly post some of their content online, but I get what you're getting at. Regarding Sports Illustrated specifically, any thoughts on the fact citation expander, in my experience, has always changed references I've used that use Sports Illustrated to cite magazine instead of cite web? Lastly, maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel be Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, re Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, my bad. I always confuse Green Bay Press-Gazette and MJS on which has the dash. My general process (and I am sure I'm not 100% on this) is that if I am using {{Cite web}} to cite an exclusively online source, I typically don't link to the article (so ESPN.com and not ESPN). For other sources which were primarily offline, like magazines, newspapers, or encyclopedias, I will link every occurence in each citation (so Green Bay Press-Gazette for each citation). Does that make sense? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the one use of SI.com, I fixed that to {{Cite magazine}} and linked the magazine field. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I understand better now about your process and stylistic choices so it should be more to the point in any future lists you nominate. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

The article looks pretty good overall already, so my comments are probably mostly nitpicks.

• The Packers have only had the first selection in a draft twice - You can remove "only"
  •  Done « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• and Tony Mandarich in 1989. The selection of Mandarich has been much maligned over the years. Of the first five picks of the 1989 NFL draft - Mostly just curious if there's a reason throughout the article why you technically link the second instance of a draft year instead of the initial one? I think in the context, readers would understand the link is for the draft, and not 1989 for instance. Not a big deal if that's just what you prefer or if that's how it is handled in NFL articles in general or something, but I figured I'd at least mention it.
  • My mo is that if I am just generally statin something happened in a year, I don't use a piped link, especially if later in the same sentence I actually state out the full name of the draft. That way the reader is clear on the link and there is no easter egg/surprise involved. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• selected over a 7-year period - Aren't single digit numbers usually spelled out?
  • Per MOS:NUMBERS, Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. Since 10 comes a few worts earlier, 7 stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• over 7 rounds - Ditto
  • See response above. Since 13 is right before it, 7 stays as a number. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I bring the last two points up because in other parts of the article, you do write out the numbers such as with picks three, four and five
  • See response above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Like I said, at this point these are mostly nitpicks. Great job on the article. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks ZooBlazer for the review. Responses above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 20:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing my journey of improving articles related to the Portland Trail Blazers. This was the fifth expansion draft in the NBA, featuring the newly founded Buffalo Braves, Cleveland Cavaliers, and Portland Trail Blazers selecting players for their inaugural seasons. I'm hoping to make this just the second NBA expansion draft article to become a featured list, with the other being 1966. -- ZooBlazer 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link NBA in the infobox

  Oops, rookie mistake by me. Done. -- ZooBlazer

• but folded the following month -- perhaps an alternative word choice for folded as it is a bit informal.

  It was surprisingly harder to find an alternative even after a Google search. I think I managed to figure something out though. -- ZooBlazer

• After each round, where each of the expansion teams had selected one player each -- I think the second or last instance of each can be dropped, as it sounds a bit repetitive and would still convey the same. I'm leaning towards the second instance.

  I ended up just dropping both of the last two instances. -- ZooBlazer

• briefly before he was waived -- Perhaps link waived

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• Worth linking trade on the first instance

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pseud 14: Thanks for the comments! I think I've addressed them all. -- ZooBlazer 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes look good. Support. Also, if interested, would appreciate a prose review on an older FLC here. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments

• Add a "(pictured in 2007)" for the Pat Riley image caption, since it is 37 years after the draft in question. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Added -- ZooBlazer 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support for prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Buffalo, New York, Cleveland, Ohio, and Portland, Oregon were awarded the expansion teams" - is there a way to word this so that it doesn't sound like six different places were awarded teams? Maybe remove the states and just link the cities?

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• "Houston, Texas was also [...] had to end their pursuit" - Houston changes from being singular to plural mid-sentence

  Cleaned the sentence up by removing the pursuit part altogether. -- ZooBlazer

• "the existing teams added another player to their protected list" => "each of the existing teams added another player to their protected list"

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• "However, Howell was immediately traded to the Philadelphia 76ers in exchange" => "Howell was immediately traded to the Philadelphia 76ers, however, in exchange"

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• "However, Ohl retired from playing prior to the start of the season and" => "Ohl retired from playing prior to the start of the season, however, and"

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• "However, Hetzel was waived without playing a game for the Blazers and" => "Hetzel was waived without playing a game for the Blazers, however, and"

  Done -- ZooBlazer

• The order of the table seems to be alphabetical by team and then player. Would it be useful to list them by order of draft pick if this info is available?

  I've been unable to find any sources with the actual order, so I'm not sure if it's just not public knowledge or if it is because it happened so long ago. The closest thing I found was only the first six picks. -- ZooBlazer

• "No reliable single source listing the drafts, so all of them are cited separately" - this reads a bit "meta" to me. I don't personally think discussion of reliable sourcing or lack thereof belongs in an article. Maybe circumvent this by changing that note to "The previous expansion drafts took place in [year], [year], etc"

  Reworded -- ZooBlazer

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for another great review! I was able to do everything except put the results in pick order. -- ZooBlazer 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Eat Bulaga! regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 15:00, 23 March 2024 (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 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): ''Flux55'' (talk), Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline was created by Flux55, a promising new user who has already done a lot of good work. 1991 was a quiet year for Atlantic hurricanes, but don't tell that to anyone in New England! Hurricane Bob caused extensive damage and over a dozen fatalities when it scraped up the East Coast and plowed into Rhode Island at Category 2 strength—it's still the most recent New England hurricane landfall. Also of note was the infamous Perfect Storm, which became a large, powerful, and damaging nor'easter after it ate Hurricane Grace for dinner... and then itself became a hurricane before making landfall in Canada as a weakened system! I'm proud of the work Flux and I put into this, and we look forward to the community's feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A spot check found multiple distance and location Statements which are not stated or supported by the referenced source. If a TCR or other reliable secondary source does not mention something the statement needs to be removed. Drdpw (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw: I understand where you're coming from. I was attempting to follow the standards of the Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season (which, according to the featured list log, is the most recent season timeline to be promoted to featured status). There, every single event in a system's life—be it formation, change in category, landfall, peak intensity, or dissipation—is given a location compared to a city, island, or other landmark, even if such comparisons were not explicitly drawn in the TCRs for those systems. I have also observed this being the case, from a spot-check of a few timeline details, with the 2020 ATL and 2018 EPAC timelines. If removal of the details in question from the 1991 ATL timeline is required, then I am willing to do so, but I was under the impression that I had been following recent best practice. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've asked this before and was told it was a matter of WP:CALC to measure the great circle distance between two points, using the NHC's coordinates for storm location. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 22:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can use, for example, NOAA's Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator to calculate the distance between two points. But we cannot state that a system is about "X" miles from "Y" land point unless that land point is specifically mentioned somewhere in the referenced article. The 2023 Atlantic and 2023 Pacific hurricane season timelines, currently undergoing revision as new TCRs are published, are good examples of how TL content can be limited when limited information is available. Drdpw (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw: Got it, that makes sense; I'll go back and make adjustments after breakfast and coffee. Should be able to finish this evening. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) (updated 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Drdpw and KN2731: Okay, I think I've got it all—how's it look now? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drdpw and KN2731: Just making sure you've seen this – would appreciate your feedback on the fixes I've made. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did; you have addressed issues that would be cause for immediate dismissal of candidacy by a reviewer. It looks ready for a reviewer's examination. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AndrewPeterT

Hello, Dylan! This is Andrew444 from Wikia! It is so nice to see you again after all these years still interested in tropical cyclones! Anyway, I am going to do my best to evaluate this list for featured criteria. I would ask that other comments elaborate on the points I bring up wherever possible:

1. Prose - I appreciate that there is plenty of meteorological jargon appropriately used in the timeline, yet the language remains accessible for everyone. I also see no obvious grammatical errors, and the page "feels" objective and encyclopedic when I read it. I would also like to offer the following content-related feedback:

• I notice that the four-digit pressure readings are written with commas. This is not the stylistic preference I see from the National Hurricane Center in their advisories and tropical cyclone reports. What is the rationale for including commas in these measurements?

  I stated above that I tried to model this timeline after 2020 EPAC – I observed the minimum pressure statements in that one and thought, "huh, I guess we're adding the commas now!" Of the three promotions which preceded it (in reverse order: 2020 ATL, 2018 EPAC, 2019 ATL), only 2018 EPAC excludes the commas. In other words, I kept the commas so as to follow what I perceived to be recent convention. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no links to the Tropical Storm Danny, Tropical Storm Erika, and Tropical Depression Ten sections of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season article in the timeline prose. Could these links be added for consistency?

  Done, done, and done. I'm not sure how I missed the lack of links for Erika and 10L – good catch! A link to Tropical Storm Danny (1991) (which redirects to the relevant section on the season article) had been present, but I switched it out with a direct link per your comment; I've also done the same with Claudette and Fabian. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the prose insinuates that Tropical Storm Erika became extratropical as a tropical storm. Yet the track image shows that Erika weakened into a tropical depression before becoming extratropical. Which of these scenarios actually occurred?

  I'm a little embarrassed to have not picked up on this discrepancy myself. This appears to be a case where the TCR (the source provided for the text of this event in the timeline) is at odds with HURDAT (the source for generating the track maps). A discussion at Talk:Hurricane Luis#Winds a few years ago seemingly concluded that the TCR takes precedence over HURDAT. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Is there a way for a footnote to be added explaining this discrepancy you mention in this post? I was not aware of these conflicting conventions myself, and I would assume other readers would not be, either. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: Footnote added. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Lead - I defer to another editor on whether or not the first few paragraphs satisfy the fine print of WP:MOSLEAD. However, I can say that the page nicely includes the "standard explanatory text" for hurricane season timelines. I also really like how the second paragraph summarizes the major impacts of Hurricane Bob and the 1991 Perfect Storm. That being said, I do have the following feedback:

• Unlike some other season timelines, the lede does not define what an "average Atlantic hurricane season" entails. Could a footnote be added explaining this terminology?

  Footnote added. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we add somewhere in the last two paragraphs that one-minute sustained winds are used to measure the wind speeds of North Atlantic tropical cyclones?

  I've added a brief mention near the end of the lede. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though the lead should be a summary, I do feel that the sinking of the Andrea Gail by the 1991 Perfect Storm is too significant to ignore. Perhaps a sentence can be added explaining how a book and film were made about this event (as to engage readers with little background in tropical cyclones)?

  Sentence added. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Comprehensiveness -

(a) In general, the page does a great job describing when each tropical cyclone "changed" Saffir-Simpson scale categories and made landfall. Pass on this criterion.

(b) I do not see any statements that must be cited per WP:MINREF. However, I would like to contest the following claim made in the timeline:

• In the July 6 entry, it says that

Tropical Depression Two makes landfall near La Pesca, Mexico with winds of 35 mph (55 km). Its only known barometric pressure measurement of 1,007 mbar (29.74 inHg) is taken around this time.

The corresponding cited source from the National Hurricane Center only states the 1007 mbar reading. It never says this reading was the only measurement taken from the depression. Could either another source be found for the latter sentence or the latter sentence be removed altogether?

I worded this the way I did because HURDAT does not list any pressure values for the system; neither do the advisories, with the sole exception of the one cited as a source for the measurement. I've rephrased this to remove the statement of the measurement being the only one, while still keeping mention of the 1,007 mbar value. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(c) I will defer to other editors on whether this page meets the criteria of WP:STANDALONE and WP:CFORK. That being said, I can say that while some large chunks of language do seem to be very similar to other Atlantic hurricane season timelines (e.g. that of 1992), I can tell that the specific wording is customized specifically for the 1991 season. Finally, because of how much specific detail is present about formations, dissipations, and other key events of all the storms, I would argue content would be lost if we tried to merge the timeline into the general season article. With that, I say pass on this criterion.

4. Structure - I greatly appreciate the consistent layout of the timeline. Readers like me can easily follow along as the days and months of the 1991 season progress. Pass on this criterion.

5. Style - I defer to other editors on whether your work fully meets the criteria of the WP:MOS. However, I can say the following:

(a) Visual appeal - I am happy to see the lack of red links. Also, the visual timeline, like it does on other WP:WPTC articles, provides a great and simple color-coding scheme for readers to digest and visualize different storms' intensities. Pass on this criterion.

(b) Media files - Great work providing images with concise captions scattered throughout the list, especially the visual of the Perfect Storm absorbing Grace! And since all the images are free use, no need to worry about non-free use rationales! That being said, I would like to see a satellite image or track of Tropical Storm Danny somewhere in the article. Also, what is the rationale for some storms having satellite imagery but others having tracks?

I've added a satellite image of Danny, while also switching out Ana's image for its track and Fabian's track for an image of the storm. I included both satellite images and tracks pretty much just for variety's sake, though I did try to prioritize track images for storms which lacked location comparison points in their TCRs. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Stability - Looking through the edit history, I notice that most of the edits from the past month are revisions that you have made, several of which are in response to the feedback Drdpw and others gave above. This page seems satisfactorily stable for a FL.

I will offer my formal support once all of my concerns have been addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I wish you and Flux55 the best with this process. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last piece of feedback for now: In your nomination blurb, I would encourage you to clarify that the Perfect Storm eating Hurricane Grace is a reference to the Fujiwhara effect. Not everyone may understand that figurative language. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, it's great to hear from you – I never knew you had a Wikipedia account! Thank you so much for taking the time to review this! I have a busy day in meatspace today, but I'll try to address your concerns after work tomorrow. Regards, Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for addressing my feedback, Dylan. I now support this page becoming a featured list. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Andrew :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The third tropical depression of the season forms from an area of low pressure offshore the Bahamas" - is this a valid Americanism? In UK English we would say "off the shores of the Bahamas" or simply "off the Bahamas" but never "offshore the Bahamas". But maybe it is valid in American English.......?
• Prince Edward Island is mentioned but never linked
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your feedback Chris! I've reworded the bit that you quoted about Bob's formation, and added a link to the PEI article. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note with great sadness and disappointment that my co-nominator, Flux55, turned out to be a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. I am still able and willing to address any feedback for this nomination, and I hope this can still pass through the FLC process. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, the use of ";" to make psuedo-headers is not acceptable. It's ironically fixable in two opposite ways: either make them actual headers (e.g. ====June 1====), or make them actual bold text (e.g. June 1), but the semicolon is for a list thing that you're not actually doing, which messes up screen-reader software. --PresN 04:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention! I've replaced the semicolons with level 6 headers (the header size which looks identical to semicolon headers/bold text) and added {{TOC limit|3}} higher up the page. It's a different approach from the last few timeline FLs, which simply use bold text, but I figured it was one worth trying. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WikiCleanerBot didn't like this and converted the level 6 headers into level 4 headers... I think I'm going to keep it that way for now, in the hopes that it would make for easier accessibility than bold text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is the country with the second-highest number of WHS in Africa (Ethiopia, with one more, is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new nomination). Standard style. 10 sites and two tentative ones, so this is a medium-sized list. Again, suggestions about which list to nominate next are welcome ;) Tone 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The San people who lived in the area for more than four millennia, created" => "The San people, who lived in the area for more than four millennia, created"
• "Kingdom of Mapungubwe was" => "The Kingdom of Mapungubwe was"
• "The area is remarkably rich in biodiversity, even if it covers less than 0.5% of Africa, it is home to 20% of plan species of the continent." => "The area is remarkably rich in biodiversity: even though it covers less than 0.5% of Africa, it is home to 20% of plan species of the continent."
• "Vredefort Dome (satellite image pictured) is the" => "The Vredefort Dome (satellite image pictured) is the"
• "Even if the structure has been deeply eroded" => "Although the structure has been deeply eroded"
• "a lifestyle that has been in past much more widespread" => "a lifestyle that was in the past much more widespread"
• "provide insight in the time where the first" => "provide insight into the time when the first"
• "The rocks document lave flows" => "The rocks document lava flows"
• "around 200 000 years ago" => "around 200,000 years ago"
• "provide insight into life of these people" => "provide insight into the life of these people" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all, thanks! Tone 16:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a c/e to fix more minor issues.
• "the anti-Apartheid activist, who later became the president of the country" to "the anti-Apartheid activist and future president of the country"?
• "not appropriate for agriculture" to "unsuitable for agriculture"?
• That's all I have, nice work on this list. AryKun (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for checking! I fixed the agriculture as you suggested, for Mandela I think the original wording is somewhat better. Tone 16:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this in the near future with a probable focus on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a courtesy note that I haven't forgotten about this! I've been reviewing a GAN for a rather lengthy article – it had been waiting nearly seven months for a reviewer, I had already dibbed the review a few days before I commented here, and unforeseen real-life circumstances resulted in the review itself taking longer than I had anticipated. I'm starting to look at the images now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side note that ref 16 goes to the wrong place: it links to UNESCO's page for Holqa Sof Omar, a WHS in Ethiopia. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Tone 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! By the way, the image review itself is an easy pass. (I actually went to hit the 'publish' button and EC'd with your note above hehe) All images present add encyclopedic value, alt text is suitably descriptive, usage is compliant with each image's license, and the sources verify each caption. I was initially concerned about the Robben image because its uploader was blocked indefinitely on ENWP for copyright violations in late 2023. However, a thorough web search has come up negative for other sites the image could have come from. On top of that, the photo's description states that it was taken as part of a scholarship paid for by the WMF. Without either indulging copyright paranoia nor having looked more deeply into the uploader's contributions on this wiki, I am going to assume that the violations for which the user got blocked were more pertaining to text than to images, and even if there are imagevios, I'm just not seeing any red flags to indicate that the Robben image is one of them. With that said, this list ticks all the image-related boxes needed for FL status, and I am happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderers F.C. was an absolute powerhouse of the first two decades of organised association football, winning the FA Cup, the sport's earliest competition and one which is still contested and regarded as highly prestigious, five times in seven seasons before fading from the scene in the 1880s. This is a complete list of all the players who won the cup with the club. A full list of every Wanderers player can probably never be compiled due to the often ramshackle organisation and sometimes sketchy reporting and record-keeping of the early days of football, but these players who played in the cup final with the club are undoubtedly the notable ones. Comments as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

After giving this a good look, I have a few notes:

• "Ref(s)." should probably just be "Refs" since every cell in that column contains multiple references.
• Is there any reason the appearances column is not sortable?
• "Finals" -> "Final(s)" for the column name?
• Ref 3 – There's a typo which links "Tha Guardian" instead of "The Guardian".
• Is "Full back" meant to be "Full-back"? I ask because Full back (association football) redirects to Defender (association football)#Full-back which contains a hyphen.
• Similarly, what's the deal with "half back"? Of the 3 players with this designation, 1 doesn't mention "half" at their article, another says "half back", and the third says "half-back". The target of the link for Half back (association football) is Midfielder#Wing-half, which doesn't help with determining the proper hyphenation.
• Source review: Passed – all sources appear reliable enough for the information cited and the reference formatting (once that typo is fixed) is good.

Great stuff Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, all addressed I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and later went on serve as the president of the FA -- and later went on to serve as president of the FA
• Although not an image review (my unfamiliarity with licensing for older images), suggest including alt text on the images.
• That's all I got. Great to see another sport series from you on this side. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had nominated this article in 2022, but it failed the criterea due to an issue in the table formatting. Now, with that sorted, I believe thee article is ready to be nominated for a Featured List spot. Special thanks to @Sdkb and @WhatamIdoing for your guidance and contributions Atlantis77177 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image captions which are complete sentences (which I think is all of them) need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Sorted--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I hope you are content with the list now--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantis77177: - at this point I have literally looked at nothing except the image captions. If I get a chance to look at the rest I will do so, but it would definitely not be accurate to say that I am "content with the list now" simply because full stops have been added to the image captions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand you @ChrisTheDude:. I just wanted to let you know that the problem has been sorted. Besides, this archive has been dead for like 2 weeks--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Ronaldo for Real against Bayern on 18 April and Atlético Madrid on 2 May 2017, the shortest gap between hat-tricks at just 14 days." – not a complete independent clause
• "first teenager to score a hat-trick on his debut" – not sourced (the lead says he was the youngest, but other teenagers could have come before him)
• If ref. 7 is "as of 29 November 2023", the access date should be on or after that date
  • Looks like you fixed this in one spot but not another? Refs. 7 and 23 are now the same link and should be combined with the new date (ref. 23 is the one where the access date actually matters). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The following names sort incorrectly: van Basten, Cole (1), Inzaghi (1), van Persie
• Use headers in table for multiple hat-tricks by player and by club
• No need for UEFA Champions League as a "See also" link (it's used in the article)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Could you explain the header point more. I didn't get it. Rest sorted. And thanks for pointing out the Rooney one. Seems, he wasn't a teen when he scored.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hat-tricks by nationality use cells with headers (they start with ! instead of |) – the tables by player and by club should do the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Sorted.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image captions could have a "(pictured in xyz)" where xyz is the year, at least when the photo isn't from the era of the hat-trick. If it is within 10 years of any particular hat-trick, its probably ok.
• Most folk seem to use the abbreviation template for "Ref." I don't know if that's a deal-breaker though.
• Add a header for the main table. Wrap it in the sronly template, if you don't think it needs to be shown. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: I'm not entirely sure what you meant for the last 2. Could you check if the problem is sorted.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption format needs to be changed to "Name (pictured in xyz) ..." where that phrase is mentioned
• I've done this.
• You've added "Hatricks Scored in the UEFA Champions League". This is what I meant. The word "scored" should be in lowercase though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Done.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the key table "Number of times player scored a hat-trick" isn't exactly right. It is a number showing that Player X did their n-th hattrick then. I'm struggling to put this in simple words that can be used in the key table though. I think you'll be to find the right words, so I support this list on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: I have a few lines. not sure what to select. Personally, I believe the original line explains it best. But here are some of the others.

• The player's hat-trick sequence. (Only for players who scored multiple hattricks.)
• The count of the hat tricks scored by the player. (Only for players who scored multiple hattricks.)--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket FL's (e.g. List of Indian Premier League five-wicket hauls and List of Indian Premier League centuries), I've seen (1/2) or (2/3) being used, with no entry in the key table. See if that works better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Done.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've already supported promotion. If interest and time permit, please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is too long, I would cut some content. I don't think you need to list all 12 players with two hat-tricks or all 13 players to score four in a game. Cut that and then combine into fewer paragraphs.
• "Four other players have scored multiple hat-tricks in the same season: Messi for Barcelona in both 2011–12,[11] and again in 2016–17, Gómez for Bayern, also in 2011–12, Lewandowski scored two hat-tricks for Bayern in 2021–22, and Benzema did so for Real in the same season." - this does not make grammatical sense as one sentence. Personally I think it should be split into two sentences. Also "in both 2011–12, and again in 2016–17" should be either "in both 2011–12 and 2016–17" or "in 2011–12 and again in 2016–17" but not what you have currently.
• "The youngest scorer of a hat-trick was Raúl" vs "The oldest scorer of a hat-trick is Benzema" - why the different tenses?
• "none were scored in 1994–95 and 2001–02 editions" => "none were scored in the 1994–95 and 2001–02 editions"
• The superscript 4 is shown before the brackets for all players except Ronaldo
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my 5th nomination in the NFL team's first-round picks series and I hope for it to be the 25th list in the series promoted. This is also my second nomination of an AFL team (the first being the Buffalo Bills) and, of the 9 lists I've nominated / prepared for nomination (I've got another 3 ready to nominate), this has the second most notes (to List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks), which I found interesting for a team that's only been drafting since 1960.

I will, as always, do my best to respond quickly and address all comments, questions, and criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969 until" => "The Patriots played their home games at various stadiums throughout Boston, including Fenway Park from 1963 to 1969, until"
• In the 2016 row there's a space in "Pick forfeited [AL]", unlike in the other rows
• Maybe "as punishment for Deflategate" should be "as punishment for the Deflategate scandal".....?
• That's all I got. You're certainly in a high-quality groove with these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for the feedback and kind words @ChrisTheDude! Gonna need to find a new set of lists once I'm done with these runs :P Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments

• Lead image caption: " was the most recent Patriots player to be the drafted first overall." should probably be "to be drafted first overall" or "to be the first overall draft pick". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Using multi-column rows in tables ("Boston Patriots (1960–1970)" and "New England Patriots (1971–present)") really messes with their sortability. If I remember right you are supposed to add that info as a multi-row column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824: Thank you for taking a look at the article. The lead image caption you mentioned was definitely a mistake, which I've now fixed. Are you having issues with the sortability? I added a parameter to automatically sort the New England Patriots and Boston Patriots rows to the top when someone tried to sort a column. From what I understand this is normal and appropriate behaviour with sorting, similar to how the "No pick" rows automatically get sorted as a 0 value. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:COLHEAD was what I was referring to. But, if the way you've done it is the current FL norm, then maybe we should look into updating the MOS? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, this hasn't been brought up to me before @MPGuy2824, and this isn't the first list I've included this type of split in. I think the problem is that I wanted to differentiate between the seasons under the two names, but I also want to keep the table sortable and combined. I'll go ahead and remove it Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support LGTM -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

• Pleased to see my home team at FLC! I'll try to get an image review done ASAP. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good for the most part. The images add encyclopedic value and are positioned well; the captions are generally well-written and the alt text is sufficiently descriptive. Licensing checks out. A couple of the images had dead links for sources, so I took the liberty of heading to Commons and replacing the dead URLs with Wayback Machine archives. There are a couple things that need to be addressed before I can outright support on images:
  • During that time [Wilfork] was five-time All-Pro and five-time Pro Bowler. – according to the source, he was only All-Pro once. (An "a" would help this flow more smoothly as well.)
  • The above "during" clause, as well as During [Bledsoe's] nine seasons with the team, should be followed with commas
• Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dylan620: Thank you for the review! I definitely missed the "a" in Wilfork's blurb, I've fixed that. As for the Bledsoe blurb, I've reworded it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh: No prob! I'm satisfied with the Bledsoe change, but there still remains the issue of the Wilfork caption not quite matching the source – specifically, the caption states that he was a five-time All-Pro, but according to the Pro-Football-Reference.com page used as a source, Wilfork was a one-time All-Pro. (I also still believe that a comma should be present after During that time, although I wonder if that may just be stylistic preference.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dylan620: Oops, sorry, missed replying to that part of your comment. I understand why you're saying that about the five-time All-Pro part, it's because of the badge at the top right of the page. That badge only refers to Associated Press first-team All-Pro selections, whereas the Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes a number of selectors. If you scroll down on the source linked you'll see an All-Pro Teams section which shows entries for five separate years. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh: Ahhhhh I see that now, my bad! Issues resolved/clarified; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming sometime in the next three and a half hours. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Queen of Hearts, not sure if you're still interest in providing a review, but I thought I'd send a ping in case you were. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure at all @Queen of Hearts, but I just wanted to ping you again about this. I'll assume you're no longer intending to complete a review if I don't hear back from you again soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, sorry, no, I don't intend on reviewing this. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, just wanted to confirm :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gonzo_fan2007

• Refs #3 and #32: bypass the redirect of New England Patriots Hall of Fame to New England Patriots#Patriots Hall of Fame
• Refs #20, #24, #36, #39, and #41 should include page number, which is readily provided on the digital recreation of the actual newspaper clipping.
• Ref #38: I would bypass the redirect of MassLive
• Ref #61: can you find a more reliable source? Grantland is a blog, and I can see justifications about the person writing the article is a SME but this also seems like an easy one to replace with a better source.
• Ref 33: Yardbarker isn't linked. Similar to the above, any possibility of a better source? Yardbarker appears to curate articles? Is this article from another publisher?
• All other sources appear to be consistently formatted and archived, where necessary.
• Spot checks showed accurate citing of the material in the article.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I've made all the suggested changes, including replacing the two sources. I hadn't noticed that about The New York Times sources, I'll have to go back and check to make sure it's included in other lists I've promoted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Source Review Passed « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 21:18, 15 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in the series of Snooker world rankings articles. Alex Higgins lost out on the top spot for playing Space Invaders (allegedly), while normal service was resumed by Ray Reardon being at number one. There wasn't as much commentary in sources about this list as in some previous years. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome and I'm happy to share relevant extracts from offline sources with reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No pictures?

• I've added one. Unfortunately there is no free to use image of Reardon. There are a couple of pictures of Higgins on Commons but I think the 2008 one is not representative enough, and I'm not convinced that the 1968 ones are genuinely free to use. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The player who Reardon replaced as number one" => "The player whom Reardon replaced as number one"
• "when was late returning" => "when he was late returning"
• Refs 4 and 9 should have all the same parameters as ref 1
• Ref 10 needs "via Newspapers.com" to be consistent with similar refs

• I've made these changes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - could have sworn I saw a picture of Reardon on at least one previous article that passed through FLC or FAC - was it found to actually not be free to use and deleted? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. The source image for the Reardon file was deleted for "no permissions" at Wikicommons. I had removed a few instances on Wikipedia and have now removed the other instances on earlier ranking lists. I've also made a nomination for deletion at Wikicommons. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-expert prose review.

• World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) - I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as WPBSA isn't use more than once.
• except the 1981/1982 one -- perhaps this can be phrased as except during 1981/1982
• 1982/1983 season -- the other snooker seasons are written with an endash (i.e.76–77, 82–83), perhaps this should be consistent with the rest
• The top sixteen players in the rankings were seeded through to the main stage of the 1983 World Snooker Championship. -- any reason why this one sentence is written separately? Also, seeded can be unlinked, as it is already wikilinked on the first instance.
• That's all from me. Great series and I enjoyed reading this list. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, Pseud 14. I've incorporated all of the above comments; let me know if there is anything else. Regards, 00:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Btw, if you have time and interest, would appreciate your feedback on my current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – No issues with this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful FL candidacy for List of songs recorded by SB19, I am attempting to have another, yet again, SB19 list gain featured status. This time, it's their discography page! It contains albums, EPs, and single releases from 2018 up until now from the beloved P-pop group SB19. After using existing FL discographies of Filipino and international artists as guides, I think the discography list of who made people move on TikTok satisfies the FL criteria.

All suggestions and feedback are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "named one of the first successful and leading acts for promoting P-pop music" - "successful" and "leading" mean the same thing. I would say "named one of the most successful acts in promoting P-pop music"

  Done

• "The EP spawned singles, "What?", " => "The EP spawned the singles "What?", "

  Done

• "By the end of the year, the boy band released" => "Later in the year, the boy band released"

  Done

• "and got featured" => "and was featured"

  Done

• "which reached the top 10 positions in the Philippines" => "which reached the top 10 in the Philippines"

  Done

• "denotes chart does not exist upon the song release" => "denotes that chart did not exist at the time of the song's release"

  Done

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments, ChrisTheDude! I appreciate it as always. I have actioned all your comments; let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your support! – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris reviewed the prose (as seen above), so I'll review do the tables for you!

• "Album details" → "Details". Ditto for "Extended plays" section.

  Done

• {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} → {{Abbr|Ref.|References}}. Ditto for "Extended plays" section.

  I have been told before that Ref(s). should be used if multiple references are used in a cell (which I agree with). Changed it to {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} instead. Let me know if that is okay.

• That sounds fine to me!

• Refs should be joined together, instead of it having a line break.

  Done

Those are my only concerns. Everything else seems fine for me! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 02:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vaughan J.! Thanks for taking a look at the list. I have gone through your comments and left comments above. Let me know if you have anything else. By the way, congratulations on your first FL! – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 08:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Everything is sorted out the way I like it. Also, thank you very much dude! — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 08:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support, Vaughan! (P.S. Also, thanks for adding the signature. I am used to replying with visual editor recently, but this thread had to be done with the source editor, which I forgot to do.) – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hahaha no worries. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a "Pro Bowl selection" by team list has been nominated at WP:FLC, and the table layout is updated to make it sortable. With all that said, I would appreciate any feedback or input, and will address any issues quickly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd help out with this one after my comments at the Packers MVPs list.

• "Northern Division" – never heard this usage, "North division" or "NFC North division" is probably better
• "until 2014, until the NFL" → "until 2014, when the NFL"
• "the highest voter-getters are named starters" → "the players with the most votes were named starters"
• "the common thread" – don't think this is the right wording since the whole point is that it changed a lot; maybe try "a common option"
• "every year since 1950 except for ten seasons" – I count nine? (Ten if you count the All-Star Games)
• Spell out 10, 9, 8, and 4 in the last paragraph in the lead (MOS:NUMERAL)
• Image captions are complete sentences, so use periods
• "also playing in the January 1939 All-Star Game" – the Packers played in the 1940 game
• "possibly best known in his role blocking for the famous Packers sweep" – citation needed or remove
• "only selected for one Pro Bowl in his career after the 1964 NFL season" – wording is awkward and implies he was picked for more games before 1964
• "a dynamic pass-catching duo in the 1960s" – citation needed or at the very least "dynamic" should not be used in WP:WIKIVOICE
• "three of them he was the only Packers player selected" – "he was the only Packers player selected for three of them"
• "became the third member of the Matthews family to be selected for a Pro Bowl..." – citation needed or remove
• "Packers only representative" → "Packers' only representative"
• Footnotes shouldn't have spaces between them and the word they follow (MOS:REFSPACE)
• Refs. column should not be sortable
• MVP background colors are too dark – need a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between link text and background to meet WCAG AA (MOS:COLOR)
  • Current ratios are 1.67:1 (game MVP) and 3.54:1 (league MVP) using Vector 2022 link colors – the lighter link colors mean backgrounds have to be very light to work and may need some trial-and-error (not trying to ramble but this is easily my least favorite part of the skin)
• "NA" → "N/A" (MOS:ABBR)
• Sort keys need to be set to enable correct date sorting in All-Star Game table (dates are automatically sorted correctly, but not when written as month-year only)
• 1982 and 2004 seasons: Fix reference rowspan
• Davante Adams' selection for the 2022 game was his fifth, not fourth
• Optional: "# of All-Star Games/Pro Bowls with Packers" might look better in key instead of header

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, thanks for the review. Two comments: (1) regarding the 10 seasons without a selection, that included 2024 originally, but Kenny Clark just got announced. When I updated the table I forgot to update the lead. (2) Will you check the colors to see if they are good? All other comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors are closer, but still not enough. I suggest #88FFFF   instead of #00FFFF   and #AFFFAF   instead of #00FF00  . RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RunningTiger123. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Only includes the position that the player was selected for inclusion in the Pro Bowl. – This feels a bit clunky, what about something like "The position which the player was elected to the Pro Bowl for"?
• None of the refs contain Wikilinks to the website/publisher. Some people choose to link in every ref while others choose to link the first mention
• Ref 103 links to 2029 instead of 2019
• For the image of Clay Matthews, perhaps you could end the sentence after Bruce Matthews, then start a new sentence to state that "Jake Matthews, the son of Bruce and cousin to Clay, later became the fourth." Just feels like it could be a bit better to start a new sentence than to stick that in brackets.
• References don't verify that Henry Jordan (1961) was Pro Bowl MVP (the other Pro Bowl MVPs are verified)
• Spot check on 15 (other) sources match what they are being cited for (spot checked more than I normally would based on the above)
• I checked out the Green Bay's media guide and I wanted to note that this also confirms note E about John Martinkovic being a Pro Bowler in 1955 (page 481).
• Do you think a separate table of "Most selections while with team" could be useful? I'd imagine an inclusion threshold of 5+ selections, which would be 14 players.

That's all I've got for now. My only issue is really just the ref formatting, otherwise it passes a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hey man im josh. I have addressed all of the above except the following:

• I don't link websites when using the "website" field. Maybe just a personal preference, but my understanding is that the only requirement is consistency.
• I contemplated trying to add a new column for "Total selections", but with the sort function it doesn't really look very nice. I also contemplated a separate table, but it's already a long page as is. Idk, I guess I don't feel strongly either way, but lean towards not making the page any longer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Fair enough about the ref formatting, the references do include all of the relevant information from the targets, it was just the website/publisher aspect I was focused on, which you've of course addressed. Yeah I don't think a separate column for total sections would be ideal. I think the only way it works out is if you do it similar to the annual statistical leaders lists we have for the NFL, such as this. But like you said, it's a long page already and I understand the hesitance towards including such a list.

• I see that you added a reference for the Henry Jordan bit I mentioned. Did you notice that it mentions "most-valuable lineman", as opposed to Pro Bowl MVP? What do you make of this? I found this from the NFL that mentions a back and lineman being selected, which is why Fred Carr received it it seems. Then I found this ref from 1962 Pro Bowl, which does confirm that he was selected. Not sure what to make of this, except that it does seem like two players were selected from the 1957 through 1972 Pro Bowls, with the exception of the 1962 Pro Bowl on PFR, which is clearly missing Henry Jordan. Do you think we need to make a clarification or explain a bit? I'm just looking into it now because I didn't understand the history of the Pro Bowl as well as I do now after reading this article and I had some questions.
• 1970 should include ref 5 instead of 1969, as the 1969 row doesn't need any addition refs for verification while the 1970 does (I missed this, as I was checking the page against MVPs originally)

The clarification regarding the Pro Bowl isn't necessary for my support, but I'm kind of just musing based on some of our past discussions. Thanks. 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jeez, the whole "Pro Bowl occurs the year after the season" has killed me with this list. Regarding the MVP, would a note suffice? Something explaining that Pro Bowl MVP was selected differently throughout the years? I'll contact PFR on Henry Jordan. They are usually pretty quick to reply. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as extra, the note would say something like From 1951 to 1956, the MVP of the Pro Bowl was called the "Player of the Game". From 1957 to 1971, MVP Awards were given to two players: the best back and the best lineman. From 1972 to 2007, the award was again called the "Player of the Game". Since 2008, a Pro Bowl MVP Award has been given and starting in 2013 the MVP Award was handed out to two players: the best on offense and the best on defense. I would obviously need to cite it all, which isn't a small order, but you get the gist. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. This is definitely a pain to clarify, that much I understand. Sorry for the excess work load but it's definitely been educational for me to review this list! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, I have added the note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Source review passed. Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

I'm starting an image review now. If I don't finish tonight, then I should be able to get it done tomorrow morning or early afternoon. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As promised:

• I appreciate how well-illustrated this listicle is; I count 22 images! The only caveat is that I'm not certain if a second image of Aaron Rodgers is really necessary, although I understand why a second would be included, considering he holds the team record for most Pro Bowls.
• Even taking the above minor reservation into account, each image adds encyclopedic value.
• The caption for the lede image reads like a full sentence, and punctuation should probably be added accordingly. (There should be a period at the end, and I personally think it would be a good idea to add a comma before with 10 as well.)
• Alt text checks out for the most part, although I think first names should be included alongside surnames.
• Licenses and image sources mostly check out as well. The source for the James Lofton image is a dead link for which I can't seem to find an archived URL, but I did find the image on an Etsy listing which provides a year that corroborates with the license provided. I do have a couple reservations:
  • The alt text for the Eddie Lacy image states that he is riding a bicycle. This can indeed be seen in the original Flickr upload, but there is no sign of the bicycle in the cropped image which is used in the listicle. Maybe replace riding a bicycle with holding a sports drink bottle?
  • The caption for the Davante Adams image states that he was selected to four straight Pro Bowls. This is technically true due to the 2021 Pro Bowl's cancellation, but could be confusing because the table shows five consecutive selections for Adams. Maybe this caveat should be added to the caption, whether in writing or in reusing the footnote from 2021's row in the table?

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dylan620, I believe I have addressed all of your comments. The Adams caption was a typo, should be "five", fyi. The 2021 Pro Bowl was cancelled, but that didn't cancel out his selection as a Pro Bowler. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me Gonzo fan2007. Image review passes; support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fourth nomination in the series of NFL team's first-round picks and I hope it will be the 24th featured list in the series. I've based it on my past successful nominations, with the difference being that this team spent 1960–1967 in an independent league that later merged with the NFL whereas my other nominations spent their entire history with the NFL. The third paragraph is new when compared to my other nominations because I had to explain the difference between the AFL and NFL drafts and make mention of the merger. As such, please do pay attention to this paragraph and provide criticism and tweaks to this, I plan to use the same explanatory paragraph in other AFL team nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The team has (singular), since 1973, played their (plural) home games"
• "Then, teams agreed" - I think "Teams then agreed" would read more elegantly
• " one of whom, Carl Eller" => " one of these, Carl Eller" ("one of whom" doesn't work given that the semi-colon started a new clause)
• "The Bills used an addition two first-round picks" - presumably that should say additional?
• "First-round was territorial selections" - no need for that hyphen
• That's what I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made all the changes you suggested and checked my other WIPs for similar issues :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are appropriately licensed
• Alt text included
• Captions are relevant and no MOS issues.
• Pass for image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All-America Football Conference (AAFC) -- I believe we only use the parenthetical with the acronyms if it is repeated in the rest of the article. I think this can be dropped, as AAFC is only used in the first instance.
• Same with AFC
• (with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players) -- I think this can be written as a statement instead of being in enclosures.
• That's all from me on the lead. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the review @Pseud 14! I was focused on a standard lead so much I missed that I defined acronyms I didn't even re-use, woops! I've made changes that I believe address all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Support on prose. Btw, if you have time and interest would appreciate a prose review on my current FLC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man ill get to this soon. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Bills' name is derived from an All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo..." - All-America Football Conference franchise from Buffalo is a sea of blue; I'd unlink All-America Football Conference
• Same quote, I'd say "The Bills' name is derived from a Buffalo All-America Football Conference franchise" to avoid a double "from"
• "... the Bills chose Utah tight end Dalton Kincaid..." - another SOB; I'd unlink tight end

I think that's it — great work as always. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review @Queen of Hearts, I appreciate it! I'm not sure there's anything in that first sea of blue that I'm comfortable unlinking, as I think it's relevant to link the AAFC as they were a competitor to the league at one point. I've tried to reword this, but I'm having difficulty in doing so. Sea of blue mentions when possibly, but I'm thinking this is a case where it's not an improvement to do so. I'll keep thinking about how to possibly reword it and keep the flow good. I also think the suggestion for the replacement quote would either also be a SOB or would force me to unlink either the AAFC or the team that the Bills are named after.

Unfortunately, I also don't think it's useful to unlink tight end in the Dalton Kinkaid mention, as this is the format that's used across a number of first-pick lists. It's also the first mention of the position and the cleanest way to list the pick Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: Just following up on this. How strongly do you feel about this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: very sorry for the delay. I don't feel very strongly about it; SOB does say "when possible" after all. Your explanations sound reasonable; still happy to support. DD (main account | talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclaimer: I saw a general request for a review on the Wikimedia Discord server)

• Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter.
• Citation 6 needs its publication date.
• Rebel Nation Magazine seems to be an alumni publication, which are generally not regarded as good sources and verge on unreliable.
• Citation
• Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13.
• Citation 35 uses The New York Times, while citation 44 just uses New York Times; I think it'd be best to add The for the NY Times and Washington Post to remain consistent with some of the other newspaper names here. I also think we can replace the "subscription required" part of the citation with "limited access" given that's what nytimes.com usually provides for older articles.
• Citation 42 is missing its title, author, and agency information.
• Citation 43's title does not match the article title in the source.
• Citation 45 should use a location parameter, as The Times by itself implies the London publication.
• Citations 52 and 59 should use the publisher or agency field for UPI.

That's all I got. SounderBruce 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review @SounderBruce!

• Are we certain that team names and organizations should use the website parameter instead of the publisher? I think it fits better to have the NFL and HOF listed as publishers; for the NFL specifically, NFL.com would also be suitable for the work/website parameter. – I guess I'm not sure on this one. I don't really see a good reason in some of these, especially for the HoF, to change it to publisher. I'm open to it, but perhaps I'm not understanding why it makes more sense in this context.

• I simply see it as good housekeeping, but upon a further read of the CS1 guide, it seems to not be necessary. I won't hold up the nomination over whether or not the text is italicized here.

• Citation 6 – Does not have a publish date

• Whoops, I assumed that all ESPN articles had a visible publication date. Looks like the source code also doesn't have a definitive one.

• Rebel Nation Magazine – This ref is only meant to verify that he didn't play for the Buffalo Bills, which can mostly only be gleamed from database sources at the moment, but it's difficult to find a source that states it outright. I looked for sources that would outright state that he never played for the Bills, but I'm not finding anything outside of sources from Ole Miss. Possibly not a much better source, but I replaced this entry with one from Ole Miss Athletics. Is that adequate given the context?

• This newspaper article in the Democrat and Chronicle seems to be a good replacement that states Dennis's situation outright.

• Diario AS's English version isn't a high-quality source, so if possible I would like to see a replacement for Citation 13. – Ultimately this was the best available source I could find that was able to verify the text of "... which serves as the league's most common source of player recruitment." Other sites say it in different ways and, if you follow the NFL at all, it's obvious that the draft is the primary method of recruiting players but other sites don't outright state it as such. I think, contextually speaking, it should be adequate for the information it's verifying, but I can keep working at it if the source isn't suitable in your opinion.

• Did a little search myself and didn't find anything better than AS, so it should be fine. I did find this interesting piece from The Guardian that could be useful if you decide to add the history of the draft

• Citation 35... – D'oh, fixed! THE New York Times is now consistent and I added "The" before "Washington Post". I have removed the subscription needed aspect for the two NY Times articles, as they aren't actually prompting me for a subscription when accessing them.
• Citation 42 – Added title and agency. No author listed for that portion of the paper.
• Citation 43 – So, the snipped part for the source is actually two lists side by side. Not sure what to do with this one since I can't match the names of both. Do you have a recommendation on the title I should be using for this? Or do you think I unfortunately need to do two separate snips instead?

• I think it would be best to use two clippings and two citations (or a bundle).

• Citation 45 – I've added the location parameter.
• Citations 52 and 59 – Updated to publisher

Thanks again for the review, I hope I've addressed all of your feedback and I look forward to your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more comments. This list looks great. SounderBruce 04:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the further feedback!

• Rebel Nation Magazine bit – I've snipped that article and used it to replace the reference I used to replace this reference, thank you for this find!
• AS source – I have a pile of references I might use some day if I do decide to expand, which I've added this to, so thank you for this one as well!
• Citation 43 – I've replaced this. On review, I actually didn't need the second part of the snip, though I did personally find it useful as a summary point. Never the less, its inclusion doesn't necessarily improve anything.

Thanks again, I think my referencing will improve based on our back and forth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. SounderBruce 06:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bills have held the first overall pick five times, four times in the NFL draft and once in the AFL draft, and selected Ken Rice in 1961, O. J. Simpson in 1969, Walt Patulski in 1972, Tom Cousineau in 1979, and Bruce Smith in 1985. - sort of a run-on sentence. Recommend cutting it into 2 sentence after "AFL draft".
• What is the necessity of highlighting the first overall pick? The "Pick" column clearly states this already.
• File:Ed oliver.jpg would be a nice, more recent pick that could be added.

That's all I got. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, I had that concern too actually. I've split the sentence into two, do you think this is adequate or do think it needs further refinement?
• Being drafted first overall is quite significant to the point that I believe drawing attention to it is a relevant and interesting thing to include. For instance, List of first overall National Football League draft picks is at over 25 thousand views in the last 30 days whereas the highest views for the series of first-round pick articles is the Chicago Bears (4,337 views), San Francisco 49ers (3,983 views), and Kansas City Chiefs (3,497 views)/
• Re: Ed Oliver – That's a good image, but I try to include the most notable players on these lists and I'm not sure that Ed Oliver makes the cut given his lack of accolades. Really I'd have preferred an image of Joe DeLamielleure, but no images available for him. Do you think it needs another image?

Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I always appreciate your insight and views on the lists I work to promote =) Hey man im josh (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence looks good now. I don't disagree that being #1 is important, but that is already information provided in the table (and linked too). This article is about their draft picks, so you would assume the reader already understands the table and what "1" means in the "Pick" column. It just comes across as repetitive. I think one more photo, of someone more recent, would look good. Ed Oliver may not be full of accolades, but he was a high draft picks who played out his rookie contract and got an extension. Likely means he is going to play for them for at least 6 or 7 seasons, if not longer. The photo is a recommendation, as well as the highlighting. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this another diverse topic from the Philippines since 24 Oras accolades list. Chompy Ace 23:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since its premiere, Eat Bulaga! is the longest-running variety show in the Philippines" - first three words are redundant as obviously it can't have been the longest-running before its premiere
• "in the creation of the international spin-off programs" - saying "the" international spin-off programs suggests that you are going to name them. So either name them or lose the "the"
• "and the global popularity on social media" => "and global popularity on social media"
• "Eat Bulaga! garnered awards and nominations in various categories" "has garnered" would be more appropriate if the show is still ongoing
• "It won nineteen awards" => "It has won nineteen awards" (as above)
• "The show received twenty-one" => The show has received twenty-one" (as above)
• This might be accurate, but did the show really not win any awards at all for the first 21 years of its existence and then suddenly start receiving multiple awards pretty much every year?
• On the PMPC Star Awards for Television > 2012 > Best Male TV Host row, the recipient's name sorts incorrectly
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, all done except the seventh point which I believe that the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s did not have circulation on Philippine media for the show's awards, as did some years of the 2000s (e.g. the 2004 PMPC TV ceremony or the nominations of the 2006 PMPC TV ceremony). This should be addressed as well. Chompy Ace 15:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, are you there? Chompy Ace 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but (although it may sometimes seem otherwise) I do have a life away from WP and yesterday evening I was not at my computer. I will look at this one again later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I guess if there are genuinely no sources for any awards prior to 2000 then I guess we either have to assume that the show didn't win any or that the ones it did weren't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has won nineteen awards from the Box Office Entertainment Awards." -> "It has won nineteen Box Office Entertainment Awards.", avoids duplication of "awards" and aligns it with the other awards named/linked.
• There's one place in the table where you linked Eat Bulaga! in parenthesis and five where you didn't. Whether you link the other five or unlink the one, I'd make it consistent.
• I'd link God Gave Me You in the awards table.
• Reference 8 has an author
• Link Philippine Entertainment Portal in reference 14 just for consistency with the rest
• Reference 38 has the publisher cited as Philstar while all other references from this url list the website as The Philippine Star. Any reason for the difference?

Not much else for me to say, the prose is pretty short and the list itself seems largely complete. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorWho, done. Chompy Ace 08:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, has my support! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled to find any issues, as it seems like pretty much everything has already been cleaned up with the above comments.

• Image review passes - The lone image is the logo in the infobox. It is properly licensed, has alt text, and sourced; the original link is dead, but the archive link works.

With that said, I'm happy to Support. Another very well done accolades article by you. -- ZooBlazer 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:05, 10 March 2024 (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, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short break from working on list articles, and previously working on Filipino solo music artists, I decided that taking on a band would be a nice change. It started with expanding their main article, until I've finally gotten to their list of songs. Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben is a nine-member ensemble whose music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on stage (Philippine theater!) Regarded as prolific songwriters, the band is also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time. The band's discography was brought to FL status by GWL a while back, so I thought I'd work on the their song list this time. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "They then renamed and released their self-titled EP" - as written this indicates that they renamed their EP, which I don't believe is what you mean. I would change it to "They then changed their name and released their self-titled EP"
• Back for a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial review. Made the change as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Filipino indie folk band Ben&Ben has recorded.....They have collaborated with" - is the band singular or plural?

My bad. Should be plural, I've made the changes, and parts of the lead as needed to be consistent.

• "By 2018, two singles from the EP were featured" - both films seem to have come out in 2018, so change to "In 2018, two singles from the EP were featured"

Done

• "and the brothers' assistance on writing" - this reads a bit strangely. Did they help someone else (Verona?) write the songs? The articles on the songs suggest they just wrote them by themselves......

I've removed the phrase so it's not ambiguous. Hopefully that reads better.

• "lyrics that delve on" - you can't "delve on" something in English. I would suggest "lyrics that deal with"

Done

• "The band members have co-written some of their songs" - on this album specifically or generally?

Just for the second album, tweaked so it specifies that.

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments ChrisTheDude. All actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and edits. Appreciate your time in reviewing as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images are all CC or PD. Positioning is fine on both my desktop and mobile views.
• Infobox image is not ideal as it appears on the page, but seems to be the best of a limited selection of free-to-use images available. I wonder if it's worth making a cropped version to make the band members a little clearer?

Thanks for doing the image review. I thought about cropping it initially, but found the cropped version to be much lower quality, since this is a screen capture from a free-to-use video upload. The better quality, seems to be making use of the wide-angle shot. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Images and their captions are relevant and I didn't see any MOS issues.
• Alt text is included.

• Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many uses of Spotify for factual and, I would assume, uncontroversial information. It looks from discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Spotify and elsewhere at RSN that editors are mostly happy with Spotify as a source for uncontroversial information. (Co-ords, please correct me if necessary)
• There have been a few discussions about BandCamp at RSN. Like for Spotify, my reading is that this source is fine if used for uncontroversial content, as it is here.
• The YouTube source used is the official channel for Studio Three Sixty so seems fine here.
• Spot check on "embraced themes of romance and positivity" - no issues.
• Spot check on "move towards sociopolitical themes reflected in lyrics that deal with social justice, mental health, and individualism" - no issues.
• I think "sparse instrumentation, harmony, and handclaps" should either be attributed as a direct quote, or rephrased.

Thanks for doing a review of sourcing as well BennyOnTheLoose. I have rephrased the quotation instead. Let me know if that works. Look forward to the rest of your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No copyvio or close paraphrasing issues found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector or in a couple of spot checks.
• Pass for source review as it looks fine to me now. Regards, 22:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

I've wanted to review this list, but I've been hesitant because the citation highlighters I use are showing a whole lot of red in the reference section (Spotify and YouTube).

I believe that's been covered per Benny's source review above, where there was a discussion linked that Spotify is acceptable for informational and non-controversial use, i.e. song credits, date/year of release, etc. The same goes with YouTube where official accounts are used (i.e. for trailers, music videos, lyric videos identifying musicians and songwriters). Per WP:RSPYT: Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. I think this verified content also applies to official uploads from film studios, production companies or television networks. In my experience, I believe, these sources have been considered acceptable within the FL spaces with regard to its use in FLs for List of Songs, Discography, etc.

• Has there been past consensus that Spotify is an acceptable source for lists such as these?

Answered above.

• "Autumn" is not sorting properly, it's being sorted as "Could autumn" for some reason.

Thanks for catching, should be fixed now.

• "The Ones We Once Loved" is sorted as "Ones We Once Loved" but "The Way You Look At Me" is sorting as "The Way You Look At Me". These should be consistent, in that, they either both use "The" as part of the sort name or neither does.

Also fixed.

• Needs to be more consistent with linking in the notes. Note U and AC for example link to the song whereas notes F, N, and R do not.

For note F, I believe the song article on wiki is a different one, For note N there isn't a article to link from what I've checked, and note R has been linked.

• Ref 2 – add a publish date

added

• Ref 9 – Wikilink SPOT.ph

linked

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, I've addressed all comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Sorry for the delay in supporting since your last response @Pseud 14. I missed this in a flurry of notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all Hey man im josh. Thanks for your support and patience in reviewing. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

• as well as rock opera-inspired music.[13][12] - Flip the ref order

I tried to find other issues, but I think everything has mostly been covered already. So in the end, I ended up with this one measly thing. Great job with this article. I think I've only briefly heard of Ben&Ben, so it was fun to actually learn a bit about them. -- ZooBlazer 18:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: that was exceptionally fast :) And thanks for the review and kind words. I've made the change per your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already started looking at it when i saw you mentioned it in my FLC. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Look forward to reading more of your work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Relayed

Salute to you for how fast you can work with multiple articles in just a short time! I am happy to review.

• Lead: The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. → The band formed in 2016 as The Benjamins, composed of Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. – add comma
• Lead: "The Way You Look At Me" by Christian Bautista, → "The Way You Look at Me" by Christian Bautista, – capitalization of title of works
• Lead: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society, → "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin ang Pasko" by the APO Hiking Society, – capitalization of title of works
• Lead: 2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography, and is scheduled → 2007 drama One More Chance will feature Ben&Ben's discography and is scheduled – remove comma
• Table: {{Anchor}} templates are not placed properly in the table, particularly for entries that start with letters B, D, and T. {{Anchor|B}} was placed next to Ebe Dancel instead of the song title, {{Anchor|D}} was placed next to the title of the second "D" song entry, and {{Anchor|T}} was placed next to the title of the second "T" song entry.
• Table: Ben&Ben (with Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo) – It appears that "Di Na Muli" is a Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo song that features Ben&Ben, so perhaps it should be written as Clara Benin and Bea Lorenzo (featuring Ben&Ben)?
• Table: "Nakikinig Ka Ba Sa Akin" → "Nakikinig Ka Ba sa Akin" – capitalization of title of works
• Table: "SUNRISE" → "Sunrise" – MOS:ALLCAPS
• Table: "Tuloy Na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko" and "The Way You Look At Me" − ditto (Don't forget the notes and references too)
• Table: Two songs in the table are not sorted properly by title:

• "Di Na Muli" → "Doors" → "Di Ka Sayang" should be "Di Ka Sayang" → "Di Na Muli" → "Doors"
• "Upuan" → "The Way You Look At Me" → "War" should be "Upuan" → "War" → "The Way You Look At Me"

• Ref 18: "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". ABS-CBNnews.com. → "Ben&Ben, Belle Mariano collaborate for "Autumn's" duet version". ABS-CBN. — The source appears to be from the corporate website of ABS-CBN, not ABS-CBN News.

This came up in a previous source review, and as a matter of consistency all news originating from ABS-CBN I have cited to appears as ABS-CBNnews.com (whether Entertainment, Corporate, News, etc). Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see; crossed out

• Ref 31: Ben&Ben. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben)". → Lorenzo, Bea; Benin, Clara. "Di Na Muli (feat. Ben&Ben).
• Ref 33: Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang]". → Ben&Ben. "Di Ka Sayang". − unwanted bracket
• Ref 37: Arias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and DAY6 member → Arias, Jacqueline (May 28, 2021). "Hear Ben&Ben and Day6 member – MOS:ALLCAPS
• Ref 41: SB. "Mapa (Band Version)". → SB19; Ben&Ben. "Mapa (Band Version)". − incomplete author name, probably it is worth adding Ben&Ben too

Added Ben&Ben; note that writing SB19 in full yields a cite error, so it is listed as just SB. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the maintenance error on numeric names. However, you can bypass the error if "SB19" is surrounded by double parenthesis as ((SB19)) and would render it as "SB19" without yielding an error. Consider doing that. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 50: Ben&Ben. "SUNRISE". → Ben&Ben. "Sunrise". − ditto (MOS:ALLCAPS)

I think that is all I got for now. Good luck! – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Relayed. All done, unless otherwise stated. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 Thanks for responding. Only left would be my suggestion above, and once that is sorted out, I will be happy to support.

@Relayed: done. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good work! Good luck for the rest of your nomination. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 22:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:39, 5 March 2024 (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, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the FLC for the 1987 list has been open for a couple of weeks and has a couple of supports, here's 1988. More Michael Jackson, more Freddie Jackson (no relation) and the usual mix of all-time greats and hot newcomers..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support couldn't find any issues with the text or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on 1988, as usual for this series. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant, have alt text, and appropriately licensed
  • Optional: Perhaps the main image could have been Michael Jackson's as he did have the most number ones that year. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Links are archived
  • Ref 5 might need fixing on how the URL is written so the article link appears. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - I fixed that last point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good now. This passes image and source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really tried to find something, but there's no issues at all. AryKun (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]