Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2022

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting another year in the history of Billboard's R&B charts. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and acted upon promptly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything to nitpick on this list. Another fine and excellent work from your Billboard R&B charts series that earns my support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For the File:JohnLeeHooker1997.jpg caption, I would use the exact year that the photo was taken to provide the reader with a more exact context.
• For the Billboard magazine citations, I think it would be helpful to clarify that they were accessed through Google Books by using the via= parameter. I would also add the ISSN to the citations as well as the volume and issue numbers so the information is more complete.

Wonderful work with this list. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• In the 3rd and 5th columns, Paul Williams should sort after Washington.
• "arwulf, arwulf": not sure what that means.
• "Big Jay McNeeley" or "Big Jay McNeely"? Even if "Big Jay McNeeley" is on the label, couldn't we make the case that that was a typo? Your call.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - thanks for your review. I fixed the sorting on Williams and the spelling of McNeely (both just dumb typos on my part). If you look at the AllMusic page that is ref 8, it lists the author as arwulf arwulf, who would seem to be this chap...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked and brought Judy Ann Santos's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating, with my earlier FLC seeing substantial support and no outstanding issues. This article had a complete rework done, including adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend shortening width-wise the first column in the table as it takes up a bit too much real estate. Allowing more space between the other columns would improve readability. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ixtal, I think I found where the issue lies, I removed style="width: 100%; after the plainrowheaders parameter so the columns adjust to the text. Let me know if that fixes the issue from your view. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better Pseud 14 :D — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend adding the posters of some of the films she's won awards for or other such images if possible (copyright and such) for just making the article look nicer. Those are the drive-by comments from me really. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ixtal, while that seems a genuinely nice recommendation, I don't think that format is generally deemed suitable for FLs since movie posters fall under non-free images and we try to avoid using those in FLs or FAs (unless necessary in the article) IMHO. See examples of our most recently promoted FLs (Anne Hathaway, Pretty Zinta, Gwyneth Paltrow). Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Literally my only nitpick is that in the table you where someone appears more than once you link it every time (which is correct for a sortable table) with the exception of Kay Tagal Kang Hinintay, which is linked once but not the other time. That's literally all I could find - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catching that ChrisTheDude and for your review. It should be linked now. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to screw this up

• "Three years later, she starred opposite Fernando Poe Jr. in the comedy drama Isusumbong Kita sa Tatay Ko (1999), the first Filipino film to earn more than ₱100 million at the box office,[4] for which she was awarded the Box Office Queen title." — I'm having trouble following this sentence, since it has quite a few facts in it. Can it be split?

Done

• "for which she was nominated at the FAMAS and Star Awards and garnered a Comedy Actress of the Year win at the Box Office Entertainment Awards" — feels... kinda clunky and awkward

Reworded to include just the win

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised and citations

Fixed

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: thank you for your review. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made a small edit but other than that, everything is in order. FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, thank you for your edits and support! Much appreciated! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded and reworked the table at The Lego Movie article and then I provided sources with verdicts for each award in this list. Chompy Ace 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a 2014 computer-animated adventure comedy film" — Perhaps, avoid linking two or more adjacent words.
• "Lord, Miller, and Dan and Kevin Hageman" — is the first "and" necessary?
  • Question for you, Kavyansh. If Chompy wanted to emphasize the first two names rather than the last two, how do we write that ... "Dan, Kevin Hageman, Lord and Miller"? But then the readers would have no way of knowing that "Hageman" is Dan's last name (until they read on, and then it's too late). But if "Dan and Kevin Hageman, Lord and Miller" is right, then why should one "and" disappear if we switch the names around? Either the second "and" is necessary or it's not ... it would be better to be consistent ... and it appears to be necessary here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why there is a need to emphasize the first two names when it is already mentioned that the film was "written and directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller" [emphasis added]. So, "from a story by Lord, Miller, Dan and Kevin Hageman" reads fine to me. Moreover, this article already has usage of oxford comma. So not adding a comma in 'Dan and Kevin Hageman' would automatically imply that it is "Dan Hageman and Kevin Hageman". Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try to raise a discussion on the general question at WT:FLC ... might not work, but it's worth a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 1 needs a citation
• The image needs ALT text.
• That is pretty much all there is to say. Great work!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh:  Done for all Chompy Ace 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all concerns addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There are some issues with the sorting in the Recipient(s) column. Anything that starts with a quotation mark should ignore that and sort based on the actual first word. And anything that starts with "The" should ignore that and sort on the next word.
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Chompy Ace 09:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For row scopes, e.g. !scope=row, if the cell spans multiple rows via 'rowspan' then the scope should be changed to use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:  Done; I used this table from List of accolades received by Soul (2020 film). Chompy Ace 03:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, rowgroup has been around for a long time, but it only got put on the ACCESS examples last fall, and I only started checking for it in these reviews in the last couple months (so, after Soul was promoted). --PresN 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "Lord, Miller, Dan and Kevin Hageman" → I think it should be "Lord, Miller, and Dan and Kevin Hageman". The use of the Oxford comma elsewhere means that it isn't really confusing and omitting the first "and" reads weirdly.
• "international co-production between the United States, Australia, and Denmark" → This makes it sound like a collab between the countries instead of production houses from those countries.
• That's all I could really find. AryKun (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun:  Done Chompy Ace 23:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the same standards as the recently-promoted Snooker world rankings 1976/1977. Coverage of the 1977/1978ranking list seems to be confined to snooker-specific sources, with only brief passing mentions in the press. Any suggestions for improvements are welcome. Relevant extracts from sources can be provided on request. Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The only significant thing I can see at first glance is that the article does not explain how three players with 0 total points got into the rankings - why were these players ranked and the other (presumably dozens) of professional players who had not gained any points at the last three WSCs were not......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see if I can find anything in sources about this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've checked other sources that cover the rankings (including Jack Karnehm's World Snooker, Ian Morrison's Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker, the Snooker Scene article on the rankings for 1978/1979, snooker.org (link), and none of them list anyone beyond 25th for that year. Nor does cuetracker, which while not accepted as a reliable source, is worth consulting IMO. Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 mentions seedings for each player at each World Championship. He has Marcus Owen as seeded 23rd and Bennett as 24th for the 1978 tournament, but Morgan "unranked"; I looked at a couple of other players from the 1977 championship not on the list of 25, and they were also "unranked" according to Kobylecky. I can't think of anywhere else that is likely to cover this. Mysterious. Any suggestions ChrisTheDude? Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest adding a sentence above the table saying something like "It is unclear why three players with 0 points were included in the rankings" or similar. I presume there was a reason for it, which just hasn't made it into available sources, but it just looks really odd to see someone like M.Owen listed there whereas someone like David Greaves, who also seems to have competed in two WSCs during the relevant period without achieving any ranking points, is not included....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, Greaves actually did better in the 1976 WSC than Owen did, which makes it even odder that the latter got a place in the 1978 rankings but the former did not....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the text as you suggested. I had a look through Snooker Scene magazine for the year following the list, as that would be the most likely place to report on any changes or further details, but without getting anything else relating to this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96

• Lede: players eliminated in the quarter-finalists gained two" - this sentence can be written as players eliminated in the quarter-finals gained two, defeated quarter-finalists gained two or something similar MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lede: "Ray Reardon retained top place in the rankings from the 1976/1977 'rankings' ." - try not to repeat the same word when they are close together MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lede: Perhaps state in the prose how many points Reardon and Spencer had in the season's rankings list MWright96 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lede: "The eight-highest ranked players were placed directly into the last-16 round of the 1978 World Snooker Championship, whilst all other entrants were placed in a qualifying competition" - repetition of the word "placed" MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Table: scope=col(s) are missing from the 1975, 1976, 1977 columns in the table MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, MWright96. I've acted on all of the points you raised; let me know if there is anything esle. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: Support Have no more issues to raise; note I've made a minor edit to the article MWright96 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• Support since I don't really have anything actionable, although I wonder if there could be a source added for the last line in Rankings ("It is unclear why three players with 0 points were included in the rankings."). AryKun (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: - see discussion above in response to my query. No sources have been found to indicate why these players were included and others with 0 points were not. If any sources said why they were included then that sentence wouldn't need to be there. In essence, it's hard to produce a source to explain why something can't be sourced. Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi AryKun - Thanks for reviewing the article. I think ChrisTheDude has summed up why that sentence isn't sourced. Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this list recently, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this might be the first Category:FL-Class Atheism articles. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This article just lists the recipients with no information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award. It falls far short of the requirement for comprehensiveness. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Dudley Miles, thanks for your review. I have worked at FL awards like Darwin Medal and Gabor Medal. The standard practice is that we include, in direct quotation, the "citation" or the rationale for the award, which the presenting organisation provides. In this case, I have checked at the official websites of both the former and current presenting organization (Atheist Alliance of America and Center for Inquiry) and the Dawkins Foundation. None has any citation/rationale. To add to the above issue, we even don't have a fixed reason as so why is this award awarded. Atheist Alliance of America says it is awarded to "honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who, through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage, advocates increased scientific knowledge; who, through work or by example, teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy". Center for Inquiry says it is awarded to a "distinguished individual from the worlds of science, scholarship, education or entertainment, who publicly proclaims the values of secularism and rationalism, upholding scientific truth wherever it may lead". It simply changes from limited criteria of "outstanding atheist" to broad criteria of "distinguished individual". From "nontheist philosophy" to "values of secularism and rationalism". In other words, for me to write information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award when the Center for Inquiry has no information on that would definitely be Original research, and this is the reason it only has name and portrait. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to that, I see that the comprehensiveness FL criteria (WP:FL#3a) requires having a defined scope and "providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Here we do have a complete set of all winners. "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items": Here, we do have mentioned everything that is relevant and what WP:RS report. Because I think this does meet the requirement for comprehensiveness. We have had recent featured lists (1, 2, etc.) which just mention that name/title and image, because that is all what is relevant. Do you have any sources which are not present in the article and have the information you are requesting for? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from below

• Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide is more relevant than The Selfish Gene
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The most recent individual to be awarded is Tim Minchin in 2021." This is recentism as it will soon be out of date. You can just say "In 2021..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "She had an early interest in science stemmed from a fascination with Karl Marx" I think [6] is more relevant. It clarifies that she is an agnostic, not an atheist.
  • Done. Although I was a bit hesitant on using WP:SALON.COM as it has no consensus on its reliability. Upon further thinking, I'd say this is usually decided on case-by-case basis. Here, we directly quote Druyan's, and specify her self stated agnostic views. So, I'd say no issues with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dennett was a professor". I would take "was" to mean he has died. If he has retired then "is an emeritus professor" would be correct.
  • Changes to "he served as a professor", that would be better, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks much better now - just a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the comments; done most of it. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot! Just for the record, I un-boldfaced and striked your initial oppose in this edit, merely to avoid any confusion by anyone reading this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I unfortunately have to concur with the above, Kavyansh.Singh. Have you checked everywhere to make sure there isn't any info on the rationales (browser search, google scholar, google books, internet archive, TWL, profile websites of each recipient's institutions, etc.)? If so, comprehensiveness is probably met. Wretchskull (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wretchskull: Mostly yes, and yes, they have no official rationale or citation. See my response above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is information about at least some of the awards. On a quick search I have found Tim Minchin] and Lawrence Krauss. I do not think your other examples are comparable. The Gallup poll by its nature does not give reasons and the birds of Nauru has links to relevant further information. This article does not provide links to information specifically relevant to the award. It would be helpful to give a summary where it is available, even if you have to mark some recipients as 'information not available'. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Kavyansh.Singh: Have you perhaps considered adding small quotes of Dawkins' speech of each recipient from the YouTube video attached to each source? For example, here? Not sure if this would fly under FLC. Wretchskull (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: are Youtube videos allowed as references? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: See WP:RSPYT. Also, I don't think adding parts of Dawkins speech would be helpful. How about if I add 2-3 lines on every recipient of the award, detailing their contributions to, well, secularism and rationalism? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Dudley Miles and @Wretchskull: How does the list look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent work! Support. Wretchskull (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all criteria except 3a. I haven't heard of this award before so I cannot judge its comprehensiveness. Other than that, I find the list to be well-written, well-sourced and in compliance with other FL criteria. Just one minor suggestion below.

• "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins." Perhaps we could avoid repeating Richard Dawkins by rephrasing to something like: "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of the eponymous evolutionary biologist." FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Center for Inquiry. It was" what is that? Some context would be useful here, i.e. what they are, where they're based etc.
  • Done.
• "awarded by the Atheist Alliance of America coordinating" according to our article it was called "Atheist Alliance International" at that time.
  • The source refers it as "Atheist Alliance of America", and our article on the same is a redirect to "Atheist Alliance International"
• You link nontheism but not atheism?
  • Fixed.
• I would avoid the "according to" for the organisation's own reason for giving the award, maybe stick with "The award is presented for ..." and just reference it to the organisation.
  • Fixed.
• "by Dawkins." maybe "by Dawkins himself." to ensure no confusion over him individually and his organisation.
  • Done, but I was reluctant as I don't think 'Dawkins' could be confused with his organisation.
• "by the Prospect magazine" reads odd to me, no need for "the".
  • Done; I believed having a definite article is not an issue as long as it is consistent within the article.
• Oh you do link atheism, just not first time.
  • Fixed.
• "and wrote books like" -> "has written books including".
  • Done.
• Probably also worth noting up front that Dawkins is British as this article's ENGVAR is USEng (for the awarding organization I assume).
  • Done.
• Why did you pick one of his bibliography that isn't considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia??
  • Well, it is notable book, we just don't have an article. Redlinked.
• "received by James Randi.[7] In" who is Randi? Where is he from? What did he do?
  • All that is in the table. Added a line here as well.
• "jointly as Penn & Teller received" comma after Teller, and suggest you note them as "television magicians" or something.
  • Done.
• "due to Maher's views on vaccines" no need to repeat Maher, and what were his views, it's unclear here.
  • Done.
• "David Gorski referred" why does his opinion count here?
  • Specified (maybe)
• "became the first Indian" were all recipients to that point American then?
  • Here is the case: Almost no WP:RS report that "XYZ was first American/British/Canadian/etc" to receive the award. But, there are a whole bunch of sources ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc., etc.) referring that particular person as the "first Indian" to receive the award. I have just summarized what many of WP:RS report.
• "awards have been awarded" awful repetition.
  • Sorry, fixed.
• "was an magician" -> "a magician".
  • Fixed (I honestly don't know what I was thinking then!)
• Why is "mind reading" not hyphenated while "fortune-telling" is?
  • Done.
• "he was a recipient of the MacArthur award.[13]" what was that for?
  • The source does not mention that.
• Odd you have a ref column but most of the refs are in the notes column.
  • That is because the "Ref." column has references supporting that the individual has received the award in that particular year. The "Notes" column has biography and views of the individual. Almost none of the sources in the "Notes" column mention the Dawkins award.
• "early interest in science stemmed from a fascination" grammar and tone issues.
  • Removed.
• "are Emmy Award winning magician-duo" really odd grammar here, maybe "are an Emmy Award-winning magician duo".
  • Done.
• "famous for her work" famous? Notable perhaps?
  • Done.
• " the Tufts University" I don't think anyone ever refers to it as "the Tufts University"...
  • Removed 'the'. But strange, because the University itself refers as "the Tufts University" [16].
• "converted to an atheism" nope, no need for "an".
  • Removed.
• "critic of Quran" of the Quran.
  • Done.
• Jacoby's notes have literally no explanation as to why she might have been suitable for the award.
  • Added that she is an atheist.
• "who famously wrote the book" tone issues.
  • Done.
• "which Susan Sontag called" who is she?
  • Specified.
• "at the Harvard University; he has" not "the" Harvard...
  • Okay.
• " an author holding Ph.D. in philosophy" again, weird grammar, I would say "an author with a Ph.D. in philosophy".
  • Done.
• "book 36 Arguments for the Existence of God" this is interesting, so she argued in favour of God?
  • Not entirely; specified.
• "supporter of Evolution, and" no need for capital E.
  • Done.
• "quality, ... and" delete the comma and ensure the ellipsis meets the requirements of MOS:ELLIPSIS.
  • Done.
• "referred by Melissa Pugh as" who is this non-notable person and why do we care what she thinks?
  • Because she was the president of Atheist Alliance of America; specified.
• "an American has served " grammar.
• "Fry is an comedian" British.
  • Done.
• Perhaps (since you made a big deal out of the "first Indian" recipient) nationalities should be included as a new column here.
  • I don't think that would be helpful for the reader. And I have explained my reasoning for "first Indian" above.
• "who received the Richard Dawkins Award because of" I don't think you need to use the full formal title here, just "the award" probably as that's what this entire article is about.
  • Sure.
• "Gervais is an comedian" not "an" and add British in here again.
  • Sure.
• "Indian to receive the Richard Dawkins Award" so why not the first Briton? Or the first "American-Canadian"? And again, no need to repeat the full name of the award.
  • Reasoning specified above.
• "comedian, who received the Richard Dawkins Award for "inspiring" same again re: award.
  • Done.

That's it for content for me at the moment. I'm a little disappointed to find so many fundamental issues in a list which appears to already have sufficient support to promote. Maybe standards aren't quite what they used to be. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for your review. I think I have replied to your every comment. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs attention. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hi! Can you please take another look? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hi! Apologies for pressing you, but is there anything else required? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly much improved. If I have time to re-review in detail I will, but happy to strike the oppose and go with whatever my colleagues decide upon review for promotion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General non-expert review. I have very few comments as it seems the major ones have been addressed above. So apologies if it comes across as nitpick-y.

• In 2005, Penn Jillette and Teller, jointly as Penn & Teller, received the award.[10][11] In 2009, Bill Maher received the award; due to his views on vaccines and his criticism of evidence-based medicine, oncologist David Gorski referred to him receiving the award as "inappropriate".[12] In 2020, Javed Akhtar became the first Indian to receive the award.[13] -- I would avoid this so the prose does not come across as listing dates, as the year is already in the table itself. Since the inclusion of some recipients in the lead is because it is notable, perhaps you can mention that Penn & Teller was jointly awarded, or were the first co-winners.
  • Well, the recipients are also in the table. I feel that since we have few notable people in the lead, mentioning the year is not a big issue. It would rather feel incomplete without years. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Perhaps just switch it up a bit, so that every sentence doesn't begin with the year. E.g. [recipient] received the award for his work/contribution on ... in 2009. Something along those lines, to make the flow better. Otherwise, doesn't hinder my support for this work.

• In 2021, Tim Minchin received the award -- perhaps it's worth mentioning that he is the current recipient of the award, similar to other FLs like Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Actor.
  • Done.
• Since 2003, 19 awards have been received by 20 people. -- I think it would read much better with "Since its inception, the award has been given to 20 individuals.", as you've already mentioned at the onset of the lead that the award was established in 2003.
  • Done.
• In the table, the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)" since you are using "Reference(s)" as the full form.
  • Done.
• That's all I have. A very interesting read! --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thanks for the review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a very minor (nitpick-y) suggestion on the first point. Otherwise, I'm happy to provide my support. Good job. By the way, if you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

@PresN: I am not sure how this nomination would proceed. TRM gave a comprehensive feedback, for which I am much obliged. I pinged him thrice over a span of 20 days, and do not wish to ping him again (he probably is busy in real life). It has been a month since I responded to the comments. What would you advice? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When this nomination is evaluated (probably in the next wave of promotions, unless Giants gets to it first) I'll evaluate if the review was addressed to my satisfaction and if I have any additional concerns. It's not unknown to have addressed opposes where the opposer never returns, so don't worry about it. --PresN 16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "scope row", wouldn't it make more sense to have that next to the names column? The years are already in chron order and sortable. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Perhaps yes; done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - — Maile (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful promotion of the List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners to featured list status, I hereby present to you a list of all the women and all-women teams who have competed in the iconic French automobile endurance motor race. I welcome all comments for this review. MWright96 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have it on the "by name" table, but they're missing on the "by country" table.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Added extra scope="row"s MWright96 (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it "female" drivers or "woman" drivers?
  • Made changes to this MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "were officially not permitted to enter the event until the restriction was lifted" what provoked the change that led to banning women?
  • It was because a woman driver was killed at the 1956 12 Hours of Reims as well as spectator deaths in two events MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we add something to that effect, even if it's a footnote? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added an accompanying note to go what I have written MWright96 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "1954 race" in note [a], make race part of the link.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "in 2021.[7]" overlinked.
  • Delinked MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "all-women squads" first mention of squad here, worth noting to the readers that not one single driver competes for the whole drive.
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the 1974 edition" edition inside link.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Same for the following three.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Best Finish -> Best finish
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Class Wins -> Class wins
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Société Esso" you linked Esso in other names, not here?
  • Added extra links MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " pp. page 1, page 2" you don't need those two "page"s.
  • Reformatted ref MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @The Rambling Man: Replies are above MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my primary concerns addressed, one comment above but not critical. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to commenting on FLCs, so feedback and questions about my comments are welcome. I will be focusing on the lede, prose, and understandability.

• "and were ranked under the same performance standards for its part in advocating sexual equality" I don't understand what this sentence is telling me. Was the race ranked by some external agency for its advocacy? Is sentence saying that women and men were treated equally? Please clarify in the article
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the ACO officially refused to allow women" Before the 1956 race, were they unofficially refusing female entries? If not, remove officially.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " to enter the event as a consequence of the fatal accident of" -> "to enter the event after the fatal accident of" to tighten up the language.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The restriction was lifted when the women's liberation movement had reached French motorsport in 1971." This sentence is hinting at events as part of the women's liberation movement, but is not very specific. What actions did the movement take to get Le Mans to reversal their ban? This doesn't have to be very long, perhaps a half-sentence.
  • Reworded sentence since I could not find any further details MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " followed by the United Kingdom in second with 16 female drivers and Belgium in third with five female racers." Since you say "followed by" the reader will automatically assume the UK is second and Belgium third, so "in second" and "in third" can be removed.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "There have been six countries which have been represented by just one woman racer." I think this is going into too much detail in the lede, as it makes the reader wonder why countries with four, three or two entries have not been talked about.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " driving for Richard Mille Racing in the Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2) category." I don't think this is necessary, as the article has not mentioned other racing companies earlier in the lede.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Since the first race in 1923, there have been 28 all-female squads, all consisting of either two or three drivers." delete the second all.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Have made changes in accordance with the above queries MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• ISBN format for McCarthy (2007) should be changed to match the others in the bibliography (i.e. "978...")
  • Appears the same to me and the ISBN links direct it to the book in question EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wss amended by Kavyansh.Singh. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Motorsport Stats and Automobile Club de l'Ouest are both used multiple times. They seem to be suitable reliable sources, as do the books in the bibliography.
• Spot checks on McCarthy (2007), Vergeer (2009), O'Kane (2012), Porsche (2018), Monteal Gazette (1971), Motor Sport re:Colleen Eaton". All good. (assisted by an online translation tool).
• Looks like there is some editorial oversight at racingsportscars.com, but what confirms that this is a reliable source?
• Author Isabelle Griffon is missing from the France 3 reference.

Images

• All PD or CC. I was a bit dubious about the picture of Lombardi but, looking back to the flickr page, it seems fine.
• "Michèle Mouton won her class in the 1975 24 Hours of Le Mans." - as the picture is quite a bit later than the race, perhaps add "(pictured in 2011)"
• I suggest amending "Sarah Bovy is the most recent driver to debut at the event." to avoid this becoming outdated when this is no longer the case.
• "The Moynet LM75 car that Christine Dacremont, Mouton and Marianne Hoepfner used to win their class at the 1975 24 Hours of Le Mans." - I think this would read better if Mouton's first name was included, even though this is on the top picture in the article.
• Otherwise, captions and placement are fine.

Other comments

• The Canada and South Africa flags in the 24 Hours of Le Mans female drivers by country table is the new one, whilst the one next the drivers are the old ones. As all these wins were before the new flag was introduced, should the same one be used in both places? (Perhaps not, per "Consistency is not paramount" and "Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations" in MOS:FLAG.)

MWright96 (now renamed to CatRacer22) has retired as of last week; is anyone willing to take over this nomination to sort out the source/image problems raised by BennyOnTheLoose? --PresN 15:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @BennyOnTheLoose: Have addressed most of your concerns except for one that I don't believe there is no fault EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, @EnthusiastWorld37:. I'm happy to pass for source and image review, and to support the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "Besides acting awards, he has been awarded with a number of state honours" => "Besides acting awards, he has received a number of state honours" would avoid the repetition
• "falls in love with the character of Kajol" => "falls in love with the character played by Kajol"
• "He was later awarded with the IIFA Award for Best Actor" => "He later received the IIFA Award for Best Actor" (as above)
• None of the notes are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops
• Ref 1 - I don't think "PR" is a person, so don't list it as the author
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• his first Screen Award of the category. -- "his first Screen Award" should suffice and link it to the award for Best Actor.
• as a Bachelor of Law student-turned-alcoholic -- as an alcoholic law student
• he received many Best Actor awards - received various
• Khan was nominated for a Filmfare award under the Best Actor category -- To make the lead a little less repetitive. I would replace a few instances of "Best actor category" with the "Award for Best Actor"
• which he ultimately won the award -- it is not clear which film won him the award. If it is the last, then mention as the latter film
• He later received with the IIFA Award for Best Actor -- He later received the IIFA Award for Best Actor
• That's it from me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

• Overlinking in lead for Zee Cine Awards.
• "next year Khan won" he won, no need to repeat Khan.
• Then instead of "His most significant..." go for "Khan's most significant..."
• "significant release of the 1990s came with " this may be ENGVAR, but I would say "significant performance of the 1990s came in " or "significant release of the 1990s was "
• "for the latter of which he ultimately won the" -> "the latter for which he won the"
• "for which he also earned" as this happened before perhaps "for which he had also earned"

Good list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wasting any time y'all, lol. This article is about the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series, one of the categories at the GLAAD Media Awards that recognize various works of media across many mediums for their positive depictions of the LGBT community. As one can infer from the title, this award is about comedy series. One unique aspect about this category is that it is one of the few to have been present at every single ceremony since 1990. I worked on this article during my FLC of GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, and incorporated many of the comments I received there (such as ones relating accessibility) for this page. I believe this page has what it takes to become a featured list, and hope anyone who comes across it might uncover a comedy series they weren't aware of before; one that gets a good laugh out of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Great work - the only thing I would suggest is to merge the final one-sentence "paragraph" of the lead with the one before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. :) --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic work on this article - only have a couple comments. Since some rows have single citations while others have multiple the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)", the full form should also be called "Reference(s)".
• Since it is a sortable table, suggest linking every instance of television networks.
• That's it for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thank you for your kind words. :D I did change it to "Ref(s)." and "Reference(s)". Regarding linking every instance of the networks, this was something that was brought up during the FLC of the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, where it was suggested that, in a given year, if a specific network appears twice or more only the first instance should be linked. Do you think it's better to leave it as such, or link it every time? Since you brought up that it's a sortable list, I personally do consider that to be a good argument for linking every instance, but I'd like yoru thoughts on it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention as well, I've come across this from one of the coords comments, for sortable tables there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first so they need linking every time. It wouldn't fall under WP:Overlinking. --Pseud 14 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pseud 14: Done. I might go back to the other two GLAAD featured lists and do the same thing there at some point. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support this for promotion. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Let's not screw this up :)

• "only twice has there ever been a tie" — this wording feels rather awkward and clunky to me...
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works in citations like Glee should be italicised
• There are a few MOS:QWQ issues within the refs
• Can the citation capitalisation be consistent, per MOS:SMALLCAPS, I guess?

Not a lot; great article. I hope you don't mind, but I've made a few tweaks myself, which you can revert if you disagree with. Ping me when these are resolved :) Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: All right, I changed the wording to something I feel, albeit longer, is an improvement. In every instance where a show or other work was mentioned, I italicised it. Regarding the capitalization of citations, I capitalzied nouns and whatnot leaving only words such as "of" or "and" completely in lowercase format.

As for the QWQ, I'm not really sure what the issue there is. From my understanding, it has to do with quotations. But none of the sources quote something in their title, right? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were quote marks in the title... but they're gone now; regarding capitalisation, words like "with" should not be capitalised per MOS:5LETTER. Since this issue is very minor, however, you got my support! Pamzeis (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Those quote marks were probably there to indicate a specific work, where italicizing it was not possible. Funnily enough, I remember having a discussion years ago with one of my instructors about which words are never capitalized and whatnot, but I lost track of the link she had given me. Anyway, thank you for the support, and I'll go fix "with" as quickly as possible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encanto is... well, you probably already know. It's huge... oh, whatever! Just read my previous nom statement! OK, so since the previous nomination, Encanto has won an Oscar and a lot more awards. Now, there's only one award left, which will be announced in... five months. I personally don't see it as much of a problem since the Hugos seem to mostly be well-documented in RSes and, really, it's only one or two sources that'll change. Hopefully, this one'll pass! Pinging previous participants: ChrisTheDude, AryKun, The Rambling Man and Bilorv. Pamzeis (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can't see any changes from last time that would make me change my mind. Although should "$228 million" be put in inflation templates (I know it released only a year ago, but future-proofing or something). AryKun (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that my previous oppose reason (stability) no longer applies. Thanks for the ping and I've enjoyed doing a source review on this list. All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1082471235.

• No issues with the reliability of any sources—I had a look at the NextBestPicture and Cinema Daily US websites and journalists (previously unfamiliar to me) and am satisfied that each is reliable for the claim they are cited for.
• Link Variety in ref #23.

Spotchecks on refs #2, #5–6, #23, #29–30, #33–35:

• "Premiered at the El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles on November 3, 2021, the film was released theatrically in the United States and Canada on November 24 for a limited 30-day run due to the COVID-19 pandemic" – I can't see that either Variety or Box Office Mojo verifies this in full (the latter just says it debuted in some places on November 24).
• Ref #23 doesn't say that it was Lin-Manuel Miranda who received the nomination (just the song "Dos Oruguitas").
• Ref #30 doesn't say that it was Germaine Franco who received the nomination.

Thanks for your work so far—the sources are good and the reference section and list are excellently formatted. I see no issues with the prose. Once the above are resolved, please check for any other issues with name credits missing from references to the awards, as I'll be doing more specific spotchecks on these in a second round. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv:  Done Chompy Ace 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, all my issues are resolved and more spotchecks turned up no other problems, so I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's not much to change, but: If the row header cell spans multiple rows (e.g. has rowspan=3 or whatever), then use !scope=rowgroup instead of !scope=row.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:  Done Chompy Ace 08:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The lone image in the article has an appropriate free license. It would be nice if it had alt text, but FAC hasn't required it for many years, so I don't feel comfortable mandating it before calling this review a pass, which I'm doing now. Please consider adding it, though, as accessibility is very important. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: Done. Pamzeis (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 22 May 2022 (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, 16 May 2022 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the same layout as current FL Snooker world rankings 2019/2020. Welcome your comments to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. "Seeding list" and "Ranking points" are missing this.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use Example text instead. "Revision dates" has 'column' instead of 'col', while the other two tables have a different problem- when you have 2-layer column headers like that, both layers should bother have scopes so that screen readers read out e.g. "Season 18/19" as a prefix rather than just "18/19". Though, actually, why is it "17/18 Season" as a single cell, but "Season" and "18/19" as separate ones? Should be just one or the other.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 17:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these. i have made the changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think you need the "main" template at the top given that it's linked in the lead
• "Start ranking released by World Snooker doesn't match" => "Start ranking released by World Snooker does not match"
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, resolved ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "Certain tournaments were given" → Shouldn't this be "are given"?
  • Hmm, I think the reason for this is that it is future proof. Ranking status can change, with some events which were once non-ranking becoming ranking, and vise versa. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote 13 needs a reference.
  • I went ahead and removed it. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've mainly just glanced over the tables since they're so large.
• That's all. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All my concerns have been resolved. AryKun (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Refs 4 and 8 are missing retrieval dates.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done very minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. Normally I eyeball the sort orders in the table columns, but the ones here are almost all numbers (which are probaby going to sort correctly), and there are a lot of them. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). Except as noted above, all relevant retrieval (or archive) dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to award players with ranking points" - as per my comment at the Snooker world rankings 2020/2021 review, this isn't correct. 1976 World Championship was before that season, as an example.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest wikilining "Seeding" in "Seedings for each event were..."
  • Linked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 12: "Start ranking released by World Snooker does not match with the points at the end of last season." - is there a source for this? Is it known why?
  • Not really. I suppose this might be OR? Happy to remove. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
    • I think it's helpful to keep the note. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4 is incomplete.
  • Fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 8 produces a "CS1 maint: url-status (link)"
  • IABot has fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that World Snooker refs should have World Snooker as the publisher, rather than WPBSA. (WPBSA is only the second largest shareholder in World Snooker's ownership company, behind Matchroom Sport, as mentioned here).
  • Still pending. Yhe other responses are fine and I can't see any other issues. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the linked sources aren't archived. I suggest running IABot.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Poke. --PresN 15:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Benny reminded me earlier today. I've left some responses. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PresN - looks like Benny is happy with sources, text and images. Do I need anything else on this nomination? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the sort of topic that attracts little detailed coverage in independent sources. I consider that range of sources is suitable and that they are reliable. Hendon's blogspot source meets SELFPUB criteria, IMO.
• As per my comments above, World Snooker refs should be attributed to that organisation rather than to the WPBSA.
• Sources:[6][7] - shouldn't the references be against "Revision dates"?
  • I'm pretty sure either is acceptable.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "- snooker.org" should be removed from the title of the "snoo_Hist" ref.
• I checked a couple of table entries against sources and found no issues.
  • Can't see any other issues. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've covered all of these. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of O'Sullivan is larger than the one of Selby. I think it could be cropped to match without affecting the usefulness of the image.
  • I had a look in MOS:IMAGES and I couldn't see that this is in breach of anything there, so take the comment as optional. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record:

• The brief alt texts seem to be in line with WP:MOSALT
• Images have CC licenses.
• Images date from close to 2018/2019 that I don't think any "(pictured in...)" addtions to the captions are necessary.
• Caption and placement OK.
• Suitable number of images for the article, and IMO the two most appropriate players to include.
  • Can't see anything else. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 15 May 2022 (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) 00:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of British commanders, this time for the 3rd Division. This formation was initially raised in 1809, and has since been raised and disbanded on several occasions. During this time period, it has had 67 permanent commanders (including several temporary and acting commanders, who are also listed), with the most recent being appointed in 2021. This list used the previously promoted (FL) List of commanders of the British 2nd Division as a basis, so hopefully everything meets muster.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only image in the article is appropriately licenced, and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition to directing the tactical battle the division is involved in" - "In addition to directing the tactical battle in which the division is involved"
• "As of 18 October 2021" - that was nearly two months ago. Maybe just say "As of late 2021" rather than being as specific as a single day? Or just note the date since when he has been in charge?
• "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, which he took command of." => "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, of which he took command."
• "When Picton returned to the peninsular" => "When Picton returned to the peninsula"
• "On returning to the peninsular" => "On returning to the peninsula"
• "Kielmansegg took" - different spelling to the name column
• "Ten days after taking command, Mackenzie was invalided back to the UK on 29 October 1914." - yet it says he was appointed on the 15th?
• "As the 3rd Canadian Division would be working in close proxmitity" - typo on last word
• Ah I now understand why the lead says "As of 18 October 2021". My earlier point stands :-)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments and review. I have worked through to address the various concerns that you raised (as for the ten-day comment, must have been a brain fart on my behalf!)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for forgetting about this for so long; more than happy to support this list for promotion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 3rd Division was an..." so I immediately thought it was defunct, but apparently not. It might have changed names/roles etc, but in essence it's still active, right?

  Correct. Over-zealous with the copy and the paste. I have changed to "is an"

• "commanding (GOC). In this role, the GOC receives" can't you just merge, e.g. "commanding (GOC) who receives"?

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "over a history that has spanned over " over/over, maybe make the second one "more than"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "was broken-up, once" is that really hyphenated?
• "was broken-up to provide" ditto.

  Not sure, to be honest. The Cambridge English Dictionary, for example, uses a hyphen when discussing a break-up of an entity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A "break-up" is not the same as something being "broken up". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus quick repeat, perhaps use "disbanded" the second time?

  Wording switched per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "permanent standing formation" what is one of those? Is it similar/the same as Standing army?

  I have made a couple of tweaks to the existing sentence, but not major changes. Basically, the UK had a standing army, but it was on based on battalions. In a time of crisis, these were formed into brigades and divisions. At the end of a crisis, the division would be disbanded. In 1902, the British Army enacted some reforms to ensure that the army always had divisions at the ready and a handful were formed (that a decade later would form the basis of the BEF). Thoughts on wording changes to try and capture that?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link Mechanized infantry as it's jargon.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "mid-90s" 1990s.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "part in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[9] " isn't there a specific article about that UN mission available to be linked?

  I have added an extra link at the end of the sentence in parenthesisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The row scope element should be unique so the name of the officer, rather than the number of the appointment (as "acting" appears a few times...)

  I have updated per your commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also the problem that when sorting by "No.", all the "acting" etc disappear off to the bottom because it's sorting alphanumerically, so you need to force a hidden sort on those to make sure they sort in the correct order.

  I checked out the Help:Sorting page and made a change, does this work (I'm not entirely sure)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a mix of unhyphenated and hyphenated "Major(-)General" in the table, why?

  In the late 90s, hyphens were dropped from ranks per the official records (the Gazette). There is a note, when the table is not sorted, on the first entry (Richard Dannatt) that this occurs on to briefly explain.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Items which are linked in a sortable table should be linked every time because after re-sorting, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
• In a sortable table, you can't assume that text retains its context, so "When Picton returned to the peninsula" is like "which peninsula? Where??" And "of the division once combat ended." which combat? Where?

  I have worked through the table and added in some additional links, including the items mentioned.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few fundamental issues here, but happy to re-review once they're dealt with. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments. I have worked on the list to enact the changes you suggested. I have also left some comments above to address outstanding concerns.

Source review passed; TRM never came back to this (and the nominator hasn't edited in 6+ weeks) but I'm satisfied with the list as-is. Promoting. --PresN 16:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Seems like you missed adding the template. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks! --PresN 21:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the Melon Music Awards is one of the biggest K-pop award ceremonies, and the Album of the Year category consists of one of the top prizes at the event. This list contains many quality sources and I believe it satisfies the criteria for featured lists. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Beginning in 2009, it consists of one of the daesang" => "Since 2009, it has comprised one of the daesang"
• "although there was no album accolade given in 2007–08" => "although there was no album accolade given in 2007 or 2008"
• "Album of the Year consisting of one of the ceremony's grand prizes" => "Album of the Year being one of the ceremony's grand prizes"
• "The criteria for the accolade currently consists" => "The criteria for the accolade currently consist" (criteria is a plural word, the plural of criterion)
• "having won four times in 2016 and 2018–20" => "having won four times in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020"
• In the table, why is 2009 designated as the 1st awards when it was actually the 5th?
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting done, the reason why 2009 is listed 1st is that the awards were not well recognized in its online period, and many South Korean sources refer to 2009 as the first award ceremony as it was the first time it was held in a traditional format. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude Are you able to take a look again? Are there additional concerns? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively short article so I don't have much concerns on this; at first glance the layout is neat! GeraldWL 06:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "an award presented by Kakao M" --> "an award presented by South Korean entertainment company Kakao M". This I think is important to establish that it's South Korea, dont want readers to constantly click article links. As a result, for "held offline in Seoul, South Korea" I think you can drop the "South Korea".
• "in 2007 or 2008"-- what about "from 2007 to 2008" (or use dash if you please)?
• "starting with the 2009 awards"-- "since 2009"
• "having both been nominated"-- is the "both" needed?
• Why is daesang linked in "Winners and nominees" but not in the lead?
• In the second table, why are the nominees text small?

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done except for the last bullet point, as I've seen several FLs with nominees that have small text. But I'll remove them if needed. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I see. No problem then-- I was just wondering. Anyways, the article looks all good now for me, so support. GeraldWL 01:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC review, so I welcome feedback on my comments. This review will focus on prose jargon and understandability.

• "which was first introduced at its inaugural online ceremony in 2005." This can be shortened to "with its inaugural online ceremony in 2005." As inaugural online ceremony indicates that it is the first ceremony.
• "Since its inception, Album of the Year has been given to nine artists." Delete Since its inception. I would assume that the award was not given before its inception, so it is not necessary.
• "From 2005 to 2008, award winners of the event were announced online," Delete "of the event". It is assumed that award winners are for this award, and this article is not about an event, so it is unusual that this language would be used.
• "given from 2007 to 2008." -> given in 2007 or 2008. The article already establishes that this is an annual award, so having a two year range is unusual.
• "with Album of the Year being one of the ceremony's grand prizes." Replace "being" with "becoming"?
• "Since then, the ceremony has been held at various venues throughout Seoul." I don't think "Since then" is necessary and can be deleted.
• " (along with Song of the Year and Artist of the Year)" I think this is a little off-topic, and isn't necessary for the reader to understand this list. I recommend deleting it.
• "which spawned the best-selling single "Cherry Blossom Ending"" I'm unsure how this information relates to this award, and is perhaps off topic. Consider deleting.
• "Furthermore, IU and BTS are the most nominated artists in the category," I don't think furthermore is necessary in this sentence and can be removed.
• "having each been nominated four times." -> with four nominations each. This tightens up the language.
• "From 2005 to 2008, the Melon Music Award winners were announced online; nominees for the awards were not made available during this period. In 2007 and 2008, there was no album accolade announced by the event committee." This information needs a citation.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's number 7 in my series of nominations for the early years of what is now the Billboard R&B/hip hop chart. In this particular year we start to see some of the earliest rumblings of rock and roll as Wynonie Harris hits the top spot with "Good Rockin' Tonight". As ever, feedback most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few minor comments:

• Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs redirects to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Better to stick with the official title.
• "two weeks later Lee returned to the top of the chart with the song "King Size Papa", which had a nine-week run at number one" - could be condensed to "two weeks later Lee returned to the top of the chart with the song "King Size Papa" for nine weeks". FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the first one, would prefer to leave the second one as is if that's OK as although it's a bit longer I think it's slightly more grammatically correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like it has always and forever been, after all the comments got resolved I'll support. GeraldWL 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lonnie Johnson had the first number one on the best sellers chart." Full sentence no?
  • Indeed. Not sure what point is being made here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B)"-- repetitive use of "in"
• "In the issue of Billboard dated January 3"-- you gotta establish that from here and beyond, you're concerning the year 1948.
• "topped the juke box chart." But why is the previous mention of "jukebox" not have any spaces?
• For the column headers ("Juke Box" & "Best Sellers"), shouldn't it be sentence case ("Juke box" & "Best sellers")?
  • This is reflecting how the charts were titled -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't quite understand the "pictured in later life" phrases in the captions. Perhaps just say what year it was and do it for all the other images for consistency?
• At the end of the "Chart history" section, perhaps a "Notes" subsection would be useful?
• Link the publishers in the "Works cited" per consistency with the above references.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: - all done other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply. Regarding the first point, I initially thought it was a sentence fragment so I was referring to MOS:CAPFRAG, but I feel like it does make up its own sentence so ignore that. But overall it looks better now, so support :) GeraldWL 02:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Bandleader/pianist Sonny Thompson": This is probably a WP:SLASH problem, and even if there's a technical reason that it's not, slashes like these still draw unwelcome scrutiny.
• "'Long About Midnight" in the 4th column isn't sorting correctly.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, the prose checks out. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - thanks as ever for your review, both the points you raised above should have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated. I read through the lede and have no notes on that.

Source review:

• The author of the AllMusic source is a freelance journalist who has written for several reputable publications, so I am not concerned about that.
• The other sources are of high-quality and reliable.
• I have no concerns about formatting.

Overall, I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• Support nothing I could find to complain about. AryKun (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it wasn't promoted in 2017 and I have since followed the comments made by the reviewer in order to improve the list. Comparing it to that version, I think it now meets the criteria. Brankestein (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• This is not the format now deemed suitable for a FL in this area. All the awards should be in one table like List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, not dozens of little tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Is there a discussion about the format's change? I would like to read it.--Brankestein (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, but I will take a look around. I do know, though, that every "awards and nominations" list promoted to FL for at least the last three years has used the "one table" format..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the change can be traced to this FLC from 2018..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--Brankestein (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "80....28....nine" - as these are all in the same sentence and directly comparable, they should all be written as numbers
• "eight Billboard Music Awards—the most by any Latin artist—," - that "-," looks really weird, is there a way to avoid that? It also occurs a bit further on
• Wikilink reggaeton
• "garnering his first and only recipient" - recipient is not the right word here. Probably just say "his first and only win"
• "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award by the" => "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award from the"
• In the table, all the entries starting with a " sort at the top followed by everything else. They should all sort based on the first actual letter(s), ignoring punctuation marks
• The Big Boss Tour should sort under B
• As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
• Notes d and e should not have full stops as they are not complete sentences
• "As of April 2018, the stream count for "Despacito" is 7.5 billion" - that was nearly four years ago, is there not a more up to date figure? If not, change "is" to "was"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your input! :) I have followed your comments, but is there a quick way to link everything? Also, I'm not managing to sort "¿Qué Tengo Que Hacer?" correctly, possibly due to the "¿". (EDIT: Nevermind, I just kind of sorted that song successfully). --Brankestein (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of links for you. Usually when I need to add a load of links to the same thing, I open the page to edit, copy the appropriate chunk into WordPad and then do a search and replace. So I copied the whole of the table then did a s+r to replace "|Daddy Yankee" with "|[[Daddy Yankee]]" and it linked them all in one go -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! :) --Brankestein (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed the sorting for "Despacito" but the other song titles still need doing so that they sort based on just the words, not including the inverted commas..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the rest of the songs but "El Amante" and "Problema", since they don't have Wikipedia pages, are automatically linked to wrong articles. Also, other songs with no Wikipages appear red and I can't add inverted commas without messing up the sorting. (EDIT: Nevermind, I resolved that). --Brankestein (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - gracias por tolerarme :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! No sabía que hablabas español :P --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate es muy útil :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

• Latin music should be wikilinked
• Article is riddled with weak prose: "all of them", "but none of them won", "as the only one to receive a", "his non-album singles"
• "without wins." - unnecessary
• "his singles" - he is not part of any group, not sure why emphasis is needed here.
• Didn't know they gave out awards for songs that earned the title "Latin Song of the Decade". This is a list compiled by Billboard using MRC data, it's not a separate award that is voted on, but a distinguished feat.
• Not sure why Time magazine's annual list of most influential people is even mentioned here.
• Since when are hall of fame inductions included in the list of awards articles? – jona ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Do you suggest to remove Billboard's "Latin Song of the Decade" award? Also, the Hall of Fame induction is included because Daddy Yankee received a physical award for it (the same goes for the Latin Song of the Decade award). --Brankestein (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with any FL lists that contain that information. It is usually found in the artist's main article, that is why I found it strange. Unless any FL moderator or guideline suggest it is fine, then I'd suggest to remove it. – jona ✉ 16:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't know how to change "his singles". Maybe "the singles" or "the albums' singles"? --Brankestein (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about Note A, Billboard doesn't give out physical plaques for any music chart achievement and the Guinness Book of World Records did specify that he holds "the most nominations" not wins, which you wrote that he "had not received a physical award for those records." so not sure why a note is needed here if the record was for "most nominated" and not "most wins"? Did you mean that Daddy Yankee has never received a plaque from Guinness Book of World Records? Any reason why Notes D and E are missing periods? I also went ahead and c/e the lead to the area problems that were still present. – jona ✉ 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the lead. Regarding the Note A, Daddy Yankee did not receive a plaque for the most Lo Nuestro Award nominations from Guinness World Records, while he did receive plaques for the records included on the table. The periods on the Notes D and E were removed following a suggestion by another editor. Brankestein (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes D and E don't need full stops (as I call them) as they are sentence fragments, not complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I now support the article's nomination. – jona ✉ 12:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback and support. --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "He rose to prominence with the release" - suggest starting a new paragraph with his name.
• "All of which were nominated" - this reads strangely when it's not part of an independent clause in a sentence. Suggest replacing "which" with "these".
• I would probably mention (one/some of) the Grammy categories "Despacito" was nominated in since he was nominated for a Grammy only once and two of these are for the Big Four.
• Why does the infobox only include five organizations? Either include all or refrain from the infobox altogether. This selectivity implies that these are more important than the others and pushes POV that we as encyclopedia should refrain from.
• Source 1 - Billboard needs linking.
• What makes chronicle.augusta a reliable source?
• Source 6 - Access Hollywood needs to be italicized and linked.
• Source 7 - latimes.com -> Los Angeles Times (and wiki-link)
• Source 8 - PR Newswire is an unreliable source per WP:RSP.
• What makes http://www.hispanicallyyours.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Its website is not even secure.
• awardsandwinners.com is definitely not a high-quality reliable source.
• Source 23 - same as source 7 (without wiki-link)
• Source 35 - Telemundo needs linking.
• Source 36 - AXS needs to link to AXS (company)
• I haven't looked to the end of references but so far I see a lot of mal-formatting, some questionable sources, there is an instance of WP:SHOUTING and one source even appears to be dead with no archived link.

I am going to have to oppose for now because of sourcing issues. FrB.TG (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have followed your comments, linked the articles and replaced the unreliable and dead sources you mentioned. --Brankestein (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better although there's still quite some work to be done. More comments below.

• Source 4 - Tucson.com -> Arizona Daily Star and it needs a language parameter
• Source 12 - the language is not Spanish.
• Source 49 - QX needs to link to QX (magazine) and requires a language (Swedish) parameter.
• Source 57 - BBC News needs linking.
• Source 68 - iHeart → iHeartRadio
• Source 96 - Remezcla needs linking.
• Source 106 - Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame needs linking
• Source 108 - Terra needs to link to Terra (company)
• I'm afraid Hispanic PR Wire can't be considered reliable since according to the website, it's "a service of PR Newswire", on whose reliability I commented in my initial review.
• Source 123 - Univision needs linking.
• Source 140 is dead; Monitor Latino needs linking.
• Source 151 - MTV needs linking.
• Source 159 - WP:SHOUTING in title.
• I am not sure about the reliability of HispanicAd.com.
• Source 203 - the link is dead.
• What makes latinfluencers a reliable source?
• Source 221 is not formatted properly. The main link is to the archive link. We normally use the |archive-url and |archive-date for this and for |url we use the original link and mark the source as dead in |url-status. FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again for your comments. I have followed them and it's hard to replace some unrealiable sources because the articles made by the awards' organizers were deleted and not archived. For example, I can't find an alternative article for the Tecla Awards nominations (the Latinfluencers.com one) because the event's organizers deleted theirs and the one I used as a source is literally the only one I can find. Brankestein (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this is not the first time where an online source isn't available for such information. I have come across this problem several times. We usually cite sources without any external links. This is not the ideal practice but it has been accepted in the past. See this for what I mean. FrB.TG (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Latinfluencers.com source with the original title from the Tecla Awards organizers' article that was deleted. Brankestein (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried accessing sources that are normally behind a paywall? What I mean is, if you go through WP: LIBRARY, you get exclusive privilege as a Wikipedia user to access news articles that are otherwise unavailable to an average person. Specifically, I'm talking about Proquestv( free to use for us Wikipedia users)!as well as newspaper.com and newspaperarchive.com, which you can get access to by requesting. Erick (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brankestein and Magiciandude, I personally searched for it both in ProQuest an Newspapers.com but found regrettably nothing for this. Brankestein, I have struck my oppose above. Although my review had a rigorous sources check, I would still like this to go through a formal source review before this is considered for promotion. Now that my concerns have been addressed, I can support this for promotion. I myself have an FLC on an awards page. If possible, review it but it's not mandatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Brankestein (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by magiciandude

I 'support this list on the basis of sources being archived and the date format being consistent. Erick (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we know that licensing a screenshot from that professional video uploaded to Vimeo is covered by CC 3.0?
• "Latin Grammy Award for Record of the Year " is overlinked in the lead.
• Awards such as "El Premio de la Gente" which aren't deemed notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article shouldn't be included in a list like this.
• ""De Vuelta Pa' La Vuelta"" is linked but redirects back to his discog while "Problema" is unlinked. I'd be consistent.
• "Sígueme y Te Sigo" appears to have a lower case "y" in our article.
• Likewise, the "en" in "Barrio Fino En Directo" appears to be in lower case for us.
• Several spaced hyphens in the refs which should be spaced en-dashes per MOS.

That's all I have for a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've edited the list following most of them except the awards without Wikipedia articles. I thought that any award could be included. Also, how do I check if an image is covered by CC 3.0? Brankestein (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe "non-notable" awards should be included. And If you can't check that image is covered by CC 3.0 then you shouldn't use it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image with one that is covered by CC 3.0 according to WordPress' Openverse. Also, to clarify, any awards without a Wikipedia page should be removed? (Does this apply to the Puerto Rican Walk of Fame and Harvard University's Presencia Latina?) Brankestein (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, not gonna screw this up

• "his third studio album Barrio Fino in 2004" — commas around "Barrio Fino" per MOS:COMMA?
• "following singles" — ...uh, what does this mean?
• "won every nomination he received for the song at the Billboard Latin Music Awards" — is there a... simpler way to say this? It feels kinda long-winded and clunky at the moment
• "Daddy Yankee received a Billboard Music Award for Top Latin Song for "Con Calma". ... Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter" — a bit repetitive
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations
• Check for MOS:QWQ issues in citations

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I followed your comments but I don't understand if song titles should also be italicised in citations. Brankestein (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; song titles shouldn't be italicized in general and I don't usually see any italicization in reference titles outside of biology areas. It would be nice to have trans-titles filled in for the non-English reference titles, but that's not required. Promoting. --PresN 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because awards season is over and I have provided sources for each award in this list. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Nothing in the lead is sourced. I think you need sources for everything up to ".....the performances of Washington and Hunter." (the rest is sourced in the table)
• Actually that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd add a link to the Three Witches article to the lede.
• There is a red link for the 2021 IndieWire Critics Poll. That is okay as red links are helpful, but I am just curious if you think that a separate list could be created in the future?
• I'd archive web sources like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to avoid any future headaches.
• The citations are not consistent with including work/website and publisher or just the website. For instance, Citation 1 only has Deadline Hollywood while Citations 5 and 6 have Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic with their respective publishers. It looks like Citations 5 and 6 are the only ones that do this, but apologies if I overlooked one. I do not think the publishers for those two are necessary as they are very recognizable sites to a majority of readers.

You have done wonderful work with this list. My comments are incredibly nitpick-y and I would be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. I really should watch this film one day as the cast and crew are excellent and I have always enjoy the play, although admittedly it has been years since I last read it or saw an adaptation of it. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Link added. Template:IndieWire Critics Poll exists so that's why there's a red link. Sources have been archived. I am using Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Template:Cite Metacritic, which add the publishers automatically and cannot be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my points. I honestly keep forgetting about those templates and your response makes sense to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article. (The number of accolades is sufficient to justify a separate page from the film itself, I think.)
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For row scopes, e.g. !scope=row, if the cell spans multiple rows via 'rowspan' then the scope should be changed to use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• I've added a link I thought would be helpful, but nothing else to pick at here, so happy to support. AryKun (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

The last sentence of the lede should probably have a citation.

Source review:

• Refs 5 and 6 are supporting the following statement: "The film was critically acclaimed, with praise aimed towards Coen's screenplay and direction, Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography, the production design and score, and the performances of Washington and Hunter." However, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are review aggregates and they don't have editorial oversight of what they publish (since lots of their information is from an algorithm). Instead, I would quote two specific reviews that say this information. These reviews can be found from the links in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
• I have no concerns about the formatting.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]