Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2020

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids, mustelids), we continue through Carnivora with Procyonidea, aka "raccoons". It's the smallest family so far, at 14 species, and doesn't have named subfamilies or tribes, partially because modern research has shown that all prior divisions based on appearance were wrong. The animals are less diverse than other families, generally being 1-2 foot-long forest-dwelling psuedo-omnivores with really long tails, but as the lead image shows they can be pretty cute. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm getting faster at these (mainly because my script now pulls information directly from Mammal Species of the World, Wikidata, the IUCN, and Animal Diversity Web to generate the tables in the first place), so mustelids isn't promoted yet, but has supports already.)

• By and large would be happy to support this (seems just as high a standard as the previous iterations) but I do have a query about the paragraph of text just before the tables ("The following classification …"). It seems uncited and contains a few assertions which indicate that information may be contested; could this be cited? For example, if there are proposals to reclassify "some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies", perhaps we should be specifying where this proposal has come from. But aside from that I see nothing else to query. Images are all used appropriately, sourcing seems consistent. I haven't spot-checked sources for accuracy but can do so if required. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grapple X: Easy enough to cite the studies that broke out those species (can also add the IUCN pages as sources too if you think I should); not sure about the last sentence about things not being included- they're instances where there's no strong sources that support the change and MSW3/the IUCN don't support it. I put it in the first list mostly as a reader guide to indicate why some taxonomic change they may have read about somewhere else wasn't included; it is pretty weak, though, and I'm not sure how to cite it as a negative assertion. I'm willing to remove it if you think I should. --PresN 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say you need to cite a negative assertion; there's no need to cite why you have organised the tables or information as you have, but I would at least specify one or more of the proposed classifications that the list specifies that it doesn't abide by--so either "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as promoting some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite one or two of these here] which are not included here", or even "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as XYZ's proposal to promote some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite the specified proposal here] which are not included here" would be sufficient. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grapple X: Okay, fixed- now lists a specific, cited example of a proposal that is not included. --PresN 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy with that. It just avoids the case of saying "these things exist, but I offer no proof of it". I'm happy to support this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 10:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I think there's a copy-paste issue in the last sentence of the Prehistoric procyonids section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --PresN 13:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

In British English we don't use "preys on" with "fruit". But maybe that is normal in US English? If not maybe change to "eats". And "hunting" to "diet".

Consider changing "In addition to the extant genera, Procyonidae comprises 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Extinct species have also been placed into some extant genera; around 40 extinct Procyonidae species have been found, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." to something like "As of 2020^[update] around 40 extinct species and 19 extinct genera have been discovered: although some extinct species have been placed in extant genera research is ongoing, so the extinct Procyonidae may be recategorized in future."

P.S. If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save the animals from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: This is the second time someone's commented about the "preys on" (though I think the other time was also you); I've gone ahead and changed it to "eats" and changed the template to say "Diet" instead of "Hunting", to better accommodate non-carnivorous species. I've also changed that sentence to "In addition to the extant species, as of 2020 Procyonidae comprises 40 extinct species placed in both extant and 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." --PresN 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would break the sentence beginning "Procyonid habitats are generally forests" into two after "as well"
• I think that's genuinely all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done! --PresN 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a very good article. I couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts and source review

• The use of the green Open Access symbol is inconsistent
• I find NGO sources to be questionable at times, but the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International looks reasonable to me
• The alt texts need work
• Everything else passes my review.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guerillero: sorry for the delay! Not sure which refs you're referring to to not be consistent with the OA symbol; the cite iucn template adds it by default to iucn refs, and a bot did the others, so I'm not clear on what I need to do- is it just that ref 4 needs a not-OA symbol? Other than that, added alt text to the two images that were missing it; the maps don't have it because they have a caption directly above them instead describing the map. --PresN 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support passes my review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it provides a comprehensive review of Bardem's impressive work in film. I've worked on the introduction, which also mentions major awards he has won for his work. The article also includes a sortable list and is well cited. ~ HAL333 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Support, the tables are now as complete as they can get for notable entries, I cannot find a problem with the prose. Great work. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – all comments addressed and explanation for formatting precedent is reasonable. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - posting this here as I've haven't received a response from the same question I posed at the Naomi Watts filmography FLC. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography that is in the style I mentioned. This seems to have been common practice judging by older nominations, is there a reason why this has changed? NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit I'll try to answer that. I structured it this way as it is what I saw as the precedent. Note the featured lists Robert Downey Jr. filmography (promoted 2014), Tom Cruise filmography (promoted 2015), List of Amy Adams performances (promoted 2015), Morgan Freeman on screen and stage (promoted 2015), Jennifer Aniston filmography (promoted 2020), Lauren Bacall on screen and stage (promoted 2014), Michael Fassbender filmography (promoted 2016), List of Emma Stone performances (promoted 2017), List of Tom Hanks performances (promoted 2014), etc. Although about half or so featured articles do it the other way, I think it has become an issue of preference. No more than what type of table is used. To me, placing the year before the date just seems intuitive as that is how the list is ultimately organized: chronologically. If titles were the first column, alphabetical organization would seem more appropriate. ~ HAL333 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, HAL333. Of those lists you mentioned, Tom Cruise and Amy Adams had the layout I was referring to when they were promoted. I recall the discussion around this when the shift came at FLC, as I was a coordinator back then. From what I recall and what I understand regarding MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS the reason the film came first was that it was used as the rowscope and this helped readers who were using screen readers. With the year as the rowscope, the row heading is defined as a year rather than the film and this is relayed to the screen reader. Seeing as this is a list about films, in which the films are the primary information and the year is the secondary, it stands to reason that the film should go first, as is the case with discography lists, which are essentially the same thing but for musicians. I've tried to find the discussion where this shift came about but I'm unable to find it. I'm not going to oppose over this because it's a wider issue but I'll leave my comment in case others wish to add their thoughts. I'm also going to leave a note on the talkpage at MOS:DTT to see what users there have to say, if they say it's fine then I'll happily acquiesce. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NapHit, Most of the editors follow WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Which shows the year on the left. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The reliability of the referencing looks fine, and the link-checker tool shows no issues.
• All caps in the titles of refs 4, 5, 8, and 25 should be removed.
• In ref 54, the first word of the publisher (the New York Times) should be capitalized for consistency with the other NYT cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008  Done ~ HAL333 05:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bluesatellite (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets WP:FL requirements. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a few fixes and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- great work!..Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very well done overall, but it's a shame that we couldn't get a picture of the actual award. I assume they were all copyrighted. ~ HAL333 23:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good job, I could not find anything more that requires improvement. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has my support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review and query – The formatting and reliability of the sources both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no problems, so the source review is a pass. While I'm here, did they keep Jackson's name in the award title? I remember seeing an ad for the last MTV Music Video Awards that said Missy Elliott was receiving the Video Vanguard Award, which didn't mention Jackson's name, and thought it was possible that they took his name out after the controversies surrounding him gained publicity. Have you seen anything in sources to that effect or am I off base here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: MTV played it safe, they never made any official confirmation regarding the award naming.[4][5][6] The VMAs website lists it as video vanguard award, but Missy Elliot herself called it "Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award" in her acceptance speech. Whichever is official, I personally think "Video Vanguard Award" is more common. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's nothing in reliable sources confirming a name change, then I don't think any renaming is necessary for FL status, although I do suggest keeping an eye on sources in the future to see how the title is handled. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of, in a way, the "neighborhoods" of Chicago; there were originally 75 of them back in the 1920s but now there are 77. I think this is a nice list that explains its contents well enough and with good enough citations (there used to be more stuff about the "sides", but I couldn't find any non-citogenic sources on the matter). This is my first time at FLC, so please go easy. I understand if this is more appropriate at FAC. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 22:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work, I added row scopes to the table for fuller compliance with ACCESS, but thanks for all your work and edits above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Encyclopedia of Chicago links need access dates
• Everything else checks out

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after much research I think I have listed all of the notable Alumni of Washington College. I modeled the formatting and organization after several existing FLs and I think this lives up to the MOS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Medusa

• Add a better short description. Rather than "Wikimedia list article".
  • "Alumni of private liberal arts college in Chestertown, Maryland" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two alt for images. One empty and one used, any reason for this?
  • I am using Example text on all of the images. There should only be one alt text. I think the tool is showing the captions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• title=Kenneth M. Merz Jr. Named New Editor Of The Journal Of Chemical Information & Modeling → title=Kenneth M. Merz Jr. Named New Editor of the Journal of Chemical Information & Modeling
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• nine [[State senator|state Senators]] → nine [[State senator]]s
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• |website=Washington College |publisher=Washington College → just use the publisher
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• journal=Paris Review|date=1978 → journal=The Paris Review|year=1978
  • year vs date is a personal style issue, not done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• subfreshman → sub-freshmen
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A "M" indicates a Master's alumnus. → An
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Maryland state Senator → Maryland State Senator
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• New York state Senator → New York State Senator
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Psychology at University of Bristol → Psychology at the University of Bristol
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the ref, there are eg. date=1978 they should be changed to year=
  • I disagree. This is a personal style issue. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the table there are eg. Writer, and Poet in the Notability section. Can you expand them?
  • None of their books are notable, but they are notable for being a writer
• Consider archiving sources.
  • Is there a script that does that? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guerillero: Yea, use this Tool. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Lists of people by educational affiliation in Maryland|Washington College should be the first category. Than Category:Lists of people by university or college in Maryland .....
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied, CAPTAIN MEDUSA --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. I would appreciate your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ayushmann Khurrana performances/archive1. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (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, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After working with many other lists and helped some list to become Featured Lists, I improved the article with all required information, citations and structure. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

• "..as well as a Test.." To prevent this seeming like a run on from the previous statement clarify: "..as well as being a Test.."
• Consider being more vague in some of the statistics that aren't too important, to prevent it continually having to be updated: "has hosted 42 Test matches" could be "has hosted more than 40 Test matches", remove the detail about the most recent matches altogether.

Removed the most recent from all formats, but for Test, made a little tweak seeing the the most recent match is the first ever day/night Test match of India, so kept accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The first century scored by an overseas player was on 1 November 1981.." It was in 1989.
• "Ryan ten Doeschate of Netherlands scored.." "of the Netherlands".
• "the 1st and 2nd innings" Is this necessary? If it is, at least change it to "first and second".
• "denotes the number of balls faced by the player to score the particular score" This is a bit clunky, just trim it to "denotes the number of balls faced by the player"
• "refers to the date the test match started." Capitalise "Test match". No full-stop needed.
• "refers to whether the player's team won lost or if the match was drawn." No full-stop needed.
• As, per MOS:ACCESS, "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline)", do not use these as the primary indicator of something: ideally replace them with an accessible symbol, such as {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}.
• Consider using {{NA}} in replace of "NR".
• File:Everton Weekes.jpg needs a US PD tag.
• File:Mushtaq Ali 1936.jpg needs a US PD tag.
• Remove the 110% font size from the ODI table.
• Per MOS:ACCESS, do not use colour as the primary indicator of something: ideally replace them with an accessible symbol, such as {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}.

That's all from me at the moment. I will claim points for this review in the WikiCup. Harrias ^talk 11:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, fixed all above. Please comment if anything else. Dey subrata (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harrias, waiting for your further comments. Dey subrata (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harrias, kindly put your comment, so that the process can be moved further, I've other lists to nominate. It will be helpful if you make your comment as soon as possible. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support apologies: all my concerns have been dealt with, and I'm happy to support this. Harrias ^talk 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. I'd call the source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Passes my review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, it has been 12 days since the source review done, meanwhile another reviewer too reviewed. Can it be promoted now. Drat8sub (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (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, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With 43 of these lists now promoted to FL status and one having multiple supports which will complete the 1970s, it's time to start on the 1960s, a far superior decade for country music in my humble opinion...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't so much errors, but my personal preference

• Hot Country Singles, in 52 issues of the magazine - I would insert weekly after 52, it makes a little more clear
• In the issue of Billboard dated January 4 - I would reword it as "the January 4 issue", it's a little awkward
• which spent five weeks at number one, and his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - I would split that sentence in two separate sentences
• his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - You should clarify that. Was it the highest in 1969 or in the history of the chart? I would also say "cumulative" rather than total
• All three of James's chart-toppers - just James' per [11]
• If you wanted to expand the lede you could mention Tammy Wynette and Conway Twitty, as they both had two #1's that year.
• I hope those were helpful. It's a good article overall. ~ HAL333 00:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments, I have acted upon them. I haven't changed the bit about "issue dated January 4", as it almost certainly didn't actually physically come out on that date, and I think saying "issue dated January 4" is less ambiguous. Hope that's OK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the January 4 thing makes sense now.
• Support Well done. ~ HAL333 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (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, 26 May 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I have decided to nominate this for FLC. This is a comprehensive list of all video game franchises created by Bandai Namco Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Banpresto and B.B. Studio, alongside those from both Namco and Bandai created prior to the merge. All entries contain references from reliable sources that prove it is a series, all of which meet WP:V. This list has been a personal project of mine that I have worked hard on improving and fixing, and I hope to see this finally become a Featured List. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle

Third time's the charm, let's take a look:

• The first reference is to Bandai Namco Entertainment's coporate history yet the first sentence is about Bandai Namco Holdings. This is quite confusing.
  • Replaced source. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In references the website parameter should be filled as well as the publisher parameter. E.g. for website=Eurogamer the publisher=Gamer Network. A useful list is on WP:VG/RS.
  • Done.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of 2017, Bandai Namco was the largest toy company by revenue in the world" Statista source states 2018.
  • Corrected. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Newzoo source here needs to have a more recently archived version. This is becuase the ranking used in the archived source from 2017 differs from the 2019 ranking.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Fixed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "as well as the third-largest video game company..." I think the "as well as" is redundant here since you are using a list.
  • Corrected. Namcokid47^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bandai Namco owns former developer Banpresto, which operates as a toy company in Japan and was purchased in 2008," ,In the source it states Namco Bandai Holdings made Banpresto a wholly owned subsidiary in June 2006 hence it was purchased in 2006 not 2008.
  • Bandai Namco purchased Banpresto in 2006, and merged their video game operations with theirs in 2008. Fixed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "The company retains the rights to defunct developer BEC" Could you be more specific here? Do you mean BEC's video game intellectual property? If so it may be worth stating for clarity.
  • Clarified, they own the video game assets of BEC. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• " Licensed IP" I do not see why the acronym is since Intellectual property (IP) was not introduced in the lede.
  • Not sure what you mean here...? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was confused as to why "IP" was used over "Intellectual property" in the key for the table. Although this has already been addressed by Dissident93 when he changed "Licensed IP" to "Note: Fields highlighted in yellow are licensed intellectual properties"  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, we shouldn't be using abbreviations unless we've used the full word at least once prior. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not managed to look at the table yet.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Spy-cicle I've corrected all errors you have brought up so far. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namcokid47: Just to remind you there are still some outstanding issues below.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spy-cicle: Not sure what you mean here. The Statista source does show the revenue of the company. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      @Namcokid47: My concern was that the archived Statista source not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company instead showing a pop-up for a subscription. However, I did not see that there was a paragraph of prose which was not covered by a pop-up. Although, there is still a small issue with this archived source as it is not the most up to date infomation on the revenue of the company as it is displaying 2017 infomation as opposed to the 2018 infomation currently being linked. This needs to be fixed as is states "As of 2019".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay it seems you have fixed all the issues addressed so far in the lede however I have found something else. Currently the archived Statista source does not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally the references in Japanese need to have the following parameters filled out: trans-title, trans-website (if applicable), language.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namcokid47: Are you going to the above two issues?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already did. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The language parameter and Statista archived source still need to be addressed.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Spy-cicle: - The Statista source actually does display the revenue of the company: "In 2018, Namco Bandai had the highest annual revenue of the selected toy companies, generating revenues of 6.6 billion U.S. dollars." I have also added the trans-title parameter to all Japanese refs. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Spy-cicle: - Hate to ping you again, but are you planning on commenting? I've covered the two issues you brought up. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

          Sorry this slipped my mind. Support Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "while Tekken is its best selling franchise, selling over 40 million copies across multiple platforms." Having "selling" twice in three words isn't the best writing possible; how about "with sales of over 40 million copies" instead?
• "and is also the third-largest video game company in Japan...". The "also" is redundant here and can be removed to make the sentence tighter without affecting its meaning.
• I've never been a fan of "List of" section headings, as it's obvious from the title that this is a list. "Franchises" would work just as well as a title.
• I haven't checked the references in detail, but ref 47 has all caps ("GOD EATER") that should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article passes my source review. I do wonder if the lead needs to be a bit longer, but I don't really know what it is missing. It is probably alright --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC
• The company owns the video game assets - I would insert "also" before owns. Otherwise everything looks great, the lede svg is very aesthetically appealing. ~ HAL333 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HAL333: - Done. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 01:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it has the quality expected from an FL. Bharatiya29 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "..and is held once in every two years.." Remove "in".

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of the 2020 edition, a total of 130 centuries have been scored by 115 players from 18 different teams." and then "Out of the 31 teams that have participated in the championship, players from 18 teams have scored at least one century." We don't need this fact repeated twice.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Use {{asterisk}} instead of *.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #2 needs an endash, rather than a hyphen in the title. Also, replace "news18.com" with CNN-News18.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That aside, the references are all to reliable sources, and are formatted in an appropriate, consistent style.
• That's a pretty rubbish picture of Dhawan, isn't there a higher quality image we could use instead?

  Doesn't appear to be. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, not much wrong with this one, nice work. Harrias ^talk 12:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrias I've addressed your concerns here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @FLC director and delegates: The nominator has been ArbcomBlocked. Can this be archived? The objections aren't going to get fixed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This could easily be a list that someone like Harrias could adopt and take to its conclusion. I wouldn't object to that, especially given the decent quality of the list at this point. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a look tomorrow, but given my review, I concur that it should be relatively straightforward. Harrias ^talk 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I'm also happy to help and take over as co-nom with you Harrias. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias are your concerns here resolved? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yeah, I'm happy with this now. (Will claim point in WikiCup etc. etc.) Harrias ^talk 08:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

• Cricket For Dummies needs a location

  Why, it's a book? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ESPNcricinfo is inconstantly linked

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything else checks out

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (particularly List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong, which is close to promotion), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. This is the second time this list has been nominated for FL, but first one under this particular article title. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to pick up on -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only thing I thought I might bring up is the inconsistency in the notes section: Is there a reason the death dates aren't listed for everyone? - Aza24 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24: The first rows of Durieu and Dontenwill in the tables omit their death date (along with the info pertaining to their later roles of Bishop and Archbishop, respectively) because that is already covered in the later rows. I don't want to repeat the same info twice. And Exner is still living. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Relisting RCAV.org seems unnecessary

• Agreed – removed all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Individual parish websites tend to be suspect. (Holy Rosary Cathedral and St Anne's) Can you find a better source?

• I've removed the St. Ann's source (leaving it still referenced with McNally's book published by the University of Alberta Press). Going to look for one to replace the Cathedral source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Replaced the Cathedral source with one from the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a fan of using press releases from the archdiocese. Is there a better source?

• Replaced with press release from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Hope that works. If not, there's also a Vancouver Sun article (but it cites the archdiocese's press release). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactory manner. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: I would rather the Vancouver Sun. Someone else's hands touched it and maybe did some fact checking. Everything else looks good to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I've added the Vancouver Sun article in addition to the CCCB source. I had trouble getting the article to display on Firefox, but still managed to get it archived. And one extra ref won't hurt. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing a number of FLCs, I feel that it is close to fulfilling the criteria. As a heads up, the article will be on the front page as a DYK in the next week, looking at the queue. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this for promotion. I would appreciate your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson/archive1. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the first image should be cropped. It's strange when all of them except that one have the same width. ~ HAL333 00:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no problems. The sourcing checks out overall. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my little number-one country songs project, which has thus far produced 43 FLs. So here's the potential #44, covering a year in which the Bellamy Brothers topped the chart with one of the worst-titled songs ever (IMO) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – didn't spot any outstanding issues. Read the prose in detail – looks all good. Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text. And all the URLs are working. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Support from Hog Farm.
  • Worldcat suggests that the Kingsbury book with that ISBN was published in 1998, not 2004. Might want to check the edition.
    • It's based on this Google Books listing (I don't physically own the book) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get publisher locations for the two books?
    • One was published by Oxford University Press - is it really necessary to say they are based in Oxford? Other one added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have on this one. Hog Farm (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hog Farm: - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COmments by MPJ

• I am surprised to see a whole paragraph in an FLC being unsourced?
• More to come. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2 doesn't need specific sourcing because it only summarises content from the table. This has never been an issue before...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never personally seen that before, but if it hasn't stopped FLs from passing in the past then I'm good with the precident set.MPJ-DK (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • See List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1991, where similar content is not explicitly sourced in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Text wise all I see is that it does not have the "oxford comma" for sentences such a Waylon Jennings, Anne Murray, Kenny Rogers and Conway Twitty is missing the comma after Rogers. Otherwise I'm not seeing anything wrong in the lead. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table

• Sorts correctly on all three sortable columns, have appropriate "scope=" parameters defined etc. cannot find a fault in it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing comma -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - that is an excellent piece of work. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support passes my sourcing review. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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