Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2023

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many will recognize Werner Herzog as the secondary villain from The Mandalorian, but he is much, much more. A prolific filmmaker, he is unlike any other. Watch him analyze a nihilistic penguin and observe firefighters in Kuwait as an alien visitor would. Or watch him get shot and barely react. Viewed by about 300,000 people yearly, this list and Herzog himself deserve featured-level quality. Cheers ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I'm not experienced with image copyright issues, but I think at least an additional tag of some kind is needed for File:WERNER HERZOG star.jpg. Also, I can't tell for certain what's going on with the license for File:WernerAndGalen.jpg; has Lena Herzog contacted anyone about this image?
• "The Wild Blue Yonder" should sort under "Wild".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to apparently 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. Except as above, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• And just for you, I'll add number 7: you might or might not want to take a look at my current FLC. :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I removed both of the images and added one new one with a better license. Thanks for the comments. ~ HAL333 02:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I see you put a lot of effort into this one, and it paid off. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A great list, well-researched and well-written. I checked the formatting details and all looks fine. Excellent work! --Tone 09:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nice looking list, my only comments are:

• I think the refs could be improved. I'll take Letterboxd as a good source and that was my only concern there, but I mean in terms of the parameters. Could archive links be introduced; could wikilinks be introduced for the works (RogerEbert.com, Empire, etc.) as well as some authors (Roger Ebert, A. O. Scott, Peter Bradshaw at first glance, there's probably others); where it seems a film is being sourced to the work itself, I assume it is being sourced to an online directory, could this be made clearer?

• Sorry, but I'll have to push back on all of these. I really dislike work and author links (except for books). Although they technically aren't, I regard them as duplicate links and of dubious help -- as a reader I never clicked on them. I don't really know what I can do for the sources with titles identical to the films. FLC reviewers were fine with them on all of my previous filmographies. However, I am a stickler for archiving refs but the archive bot isn't working for me.... which is very annoying. ~ HAL333 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a separate "works cited" section, which is fine, I just wonder that due to the number of Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd citations, it might be simpler to just add the Herzog RT and Letterboxd filmographies to this section? I'd also like some clarity on what Prager is being generally cited for, or if it is just that one citation (at which point, for consistency in ref formatting, the "works cited" needs to go and the Prager ref needs to be made a citation like the rest).

• I ended up just integrating the literary citation with the rest. ~ HAL333 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the notes for the fiction short films table, would it be worth adding editor and sound columns, and checking them off like D/W/P?

• Good point. Done.

• The documentary short films table has the note "As himself" for Portrait Werner Herzog; this is presumably referring to his narration role? If so, can there be a note added for the other works marked as narration, as to whether he is narrating as himself or a character. If not referring to his narration role, there needs to be some better description - perhaps archive footage of Herzog is what you're referring to?

• I added "autobiographical" for clarity. ~ HAL333 19:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the 2000 Years of Christianity entry, I think "of" should take the lowercase "o". Also, episode titles are typically in quotation marks and not italic. (i.e. "Christ and Demons in New Spain")

• Done

• Lowercase "e" for the "episodes" of the On Death Row entry

• Done

• Similar to the "As himself" comment above: the other work, film table has five actor entries with the note "As himself", and one "Cameo" - we must assume that the other 15 actor/narrator roles are not as himself and not cameos, but we should know what they are (character names? Should also get a character for the cameo, too) if possible
• Ditto for the other work, television table - what are Herzog's characters for the four shows this goes unnoted. And are there any notes for Parks and Rec?

Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I hopefully have addressed all of your concerns. I went through and added his acting credits but there are no sources for two or three, like the Parks and Rec cameo. ~ HAL333 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant says it was S7 E1 "2017" and he played Ken Jeggings. That was the top result for 'herzog parks and rec cameo', a few more down was this Guardian write-up about the persona he has in acting cameos, something which I think could be added at the end of the introduction (where the cameos are mentioned); thanks for the work so far, I'll look through your updates soon! Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard Screen Rant as a high quality reliable source, and have never used it in any filmography I've written. But I include it if you want. ~ HAL333 17:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential problem with Screen Rant is making indiscriminate lists of inconsequential things, which it does a lot - it shouldn't be a test of something's notability. But otherwise, it is reliable and is specialist in this area, so it's good. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Done. ~ HAL333 19:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 hasn't edited since February, so I'm not sure if these comments will be seen or responded to.

• Most of the fiction films called out in the lead appear to be significant in some way - a career first, an award-winner, a collaboration with a significant partner, etc. However, Rescue Dawn and Bad Lieutenant appear to be neither. Why call them out, specifically?
• The selection for the documentaries appears similarly arbitrary. It's unclear why these specific works are being highlighted, as opposed to any of his other dozens of works. If it's because they are significant, the lead should say so.
• I revised the final paragraph of the lead to remove some repetitive wording.
• I see Kingsif has noted some of the inconsistencies with the "Other work" tables and I also noticed these

Aside from this, the formatting is clear, organization is clear, and I see no issues with the sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Premeditated Chaos, I think I've addressed your comments. I modified the lead and tried to include more awards/noms but it simply goes down to due weight. There's major Herzog and there's minor Herzog, and their coverage in sources is proportionate. ~ HAL333 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's major Herzog and there's minor Herzog Of course, as with any artist. My issue was that in the initial version it was not possible to tell the difference, which presented titles with no context as to why they were significant to his career. What's there now is somewhat better, but it still feels a bit like a series of disconnected titles and not a summary of his career. (Inferno, Lo & Behold, and Fireball still don't seem to justify their own inclusion aside from being newish). If you feel the current version is clunky, can I make a suggestion that may involve some rewriting? I won't oppose if you're not into it, but it may help with flow. What if you tried tying things together by theme? I'm improvising here without looking at the sourcing, so consider the overall idea rather than the exact words, but something like:

• Herzog made his debut as a documentarian in 1969 with Some Movie, and he continues to explore a variety of topics. He has made over a dozen documentaries about the natural world, such as award-winning Award-Winner and his most recent work, Stuff About Volcanoes. Other works explore human society, including Some Other Movie and the Oscar-winning Encounters at the End of the World. Early in his career, he experimented with stylization, not always successfully: Lessons of Darkness was criticized for supposedly "aestheticizing" the Gulf War. Later on, he began to focus on Some Other Stuff: interviews, such as The One With Gorbachev, and works about scientists, such as One About Scientists.

• It's a little bit harder to write something like that but it tells the reader so much more about Herzog than just reading titles. Again, if you're not into it, I won't press it, since it would be a bit of a rewrite, but I think it would make the lead much more valuable to a reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree -- the lead still is a little clunky. A FL shouldn't read like Watch-Mojo. I'll try the above as well as a few other 'tricks'. Let me chew on it. ~ HAL333 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Premeditated Chaos, I've overhauled the lead. Tell me what you think. ~ HAL333 00:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fantastic, you really get a sense of the man's work. Happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: I see that you have returned to editing; are you planning on continuing this nomination? --PresN 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'm sorry about the delay. I'll have it all knocked out by Sunday. ~ HAL333 20:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability looks okay throughout and the link-checker tool shows no issues. One formatting issue exists that should be addressed: refs 72 and 80 lack publishers (The New York Times and Toronto International Film Festival, respectively). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed (just to confirm). ~ HAL333 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is it, we're almost done with this Featured List series for flowering plant families. It's been a long, productive journey, and here we are. The rosids are generally divided into the fabids (named for the fava bean family) and malvids, and the nitrogen-fixing clade is a large clade (a group of related species) within the fabids. There's a lot here that will be familiar to almost everyone ... roses, apples, cucumbers, legumes, Cannabis. Comments are welcome. Basic licensing information for the images is on the list talk page. Malpighiales is handled in a separate table, with less data and no images, because some readers have problems with images not loading when the tables are longer than these, or when there are too many images. A hatnote directs readers to a gallery of images for almost all the families at Malpighiales. (Or, I could change the name of the list to "List of fabid families (except for Malpighiales)" or "List of non-Malpighiales fabid families", if you like.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

• Think your not placing enough emphasis on Cannabis' societal importance (vs simple use as material for fabric and rope) in the lead. That it has served spiritual/ceremonial/recreational purposes for at least the last 2400 years is certainly lead worthy. The note in the list entry however is very well done.
  • Done.
• Overall, I'd prefer a more substantial lead.
  • I've expanded both paragraphs in the lead, and as a bonus, I added a link for "temperate" so that we don't have to link it in every row. - Dank (push to talk)
• Excellent addition to the series. More later. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: Delighted with your edits ... they bring up really interesting issues, as always (although, since this is the last in the series for a while, it's too late in the day to go through all the previous lists changing every "scattered", I think). If you'd hold off editing for a few minutes, I'm going to follow PresN's advice and toss out 4 of the orders. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

np Ceoil (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done for now. Carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see you have addressed the above and those implied via my edit summaries. I'm happy here; as usual crisp and spare writing, top notch sourcing, beautiful illustrations, and clearly explained annotations. What more could be asked for. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very kind. Regarding your question about whether this is the end ... I'm going to give the COM clade a shot. I'm leaving one column in the malvids blank to encourage others to participate. Elizabeth is working on the campanulids. And that will finish up the flowering plant families. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps shrubs and vines could be linked
  • Done in this edit. - Dank (push to talk)
• Would it be helpful if the full name of THC is written?
  • Done.
• I'm assuming the instances red-links are articles that would be created soon?
  • For the people who are namesakes of plant genera, I have kind of a standard answer for that. In this list, I see one such red link, for Joseph Surian. I first mentioned him in List of plant genera named for people (Q–Z). If you go to the talk page of that list and look in "Notes", you'll see that there used to be a link to the relevant section of his Wikidata entry (but that was removed in this edit). That shows you that he's considered notable enough for articles in the German and French Wikipedias, and those articles provide some helpful information.
  • There's one plant species with a red link. Plant species are always assumed to be notable, per WP:SPECIES. If you're asking me to request that these articles be created, I can do that; I'd prefer not to write them myself.
    • Thank you for clarifying this and providing your rationale. I don't see the red-links as hindrance for my providing my support.
• That's all from me. Another well-structured and informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14, kind of you to say that, and thanks for the review. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am satisfied with the above and I am happy to support for promotion. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. A look-over found nothing of concern. ~ HAL333 20:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hal. Does that include the sources? I'm asking because Giants put this on the source-review-needed list a couple of days ago. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Source formatting isn't my forte. ~ HAL333 12:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references all appear to be well-formatted and reliable, and the link-checker turned up no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The photos/illustrations have appropriate captions and alt text, and the ones I reviewed had proper free licenses. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Indianapolis 500 is a 500 mile auto race held at the fabled Indianapolis Motor Speedway during the month of May and part of the informal Triple Crown of Motorsport. Many famous drivers such as Hélio Castroneves, A. J. Foyt, Rick Mears, Al Unser, Dario Franchitti, Mario Andretti, Johnny Rutherford, Juan Pablo Montoya, Bobby Unser and Jacques Villeneuve have been winners of this event. I look forward to all the comments on this review. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "reverting to International 500-Mile Sweepstakes Race from 1920 until 1980" - and since then.......?
  • Clarified EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The American Automobile Association were the governing body" => "The American Automobile Association was the governing body"
  • Done slightly differently EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "between its inception until 1955" => "from its inception until 1955"
  • Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "then United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997" => "then the United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997"
  • Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "which sees a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face added to the base" - would probably be better as "and a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face is added to the base of the trophy itself"
  • Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "is" before added is missing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "The driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in victory lane each year since 1960" => "Since 1960 the driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in the victory lane"
  • Done, although in American English, the spelling "Victory Lane" is common EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue was not the spelling but the missing word "the" before "victory" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In the key what's a rookie in this context? A driver in his first year of competitive racing? A driver driving in this particular race for the first time? Or something else?
  • A driver who is competing for the first time at the Indianapolis 500 EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indicates winning driver was a Indianapolis 500 rookie" should be "Indicates winning driver was an Indianapolis 500 rookie" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's probably too much detail for the lead to mention that the 2020 race was held in August due (I presume) to COVID, but it might merit a footnote
  • Added EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note d is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Done EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have taken action on the points raised above EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comments above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Done on all three additional points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "200 lap, 500 mi (800 km)" should be a separate sentence, to avoid number overload.
• The lead doesn't specify when the inception of the event was.
• "before becoming the 300-Mile Liberty Sweepstakes in 1919" I can't help but notice that the 1919 race in the table was contested over 500 miles? Is something wrong here?
• "The American Automobile Association governed the event" the sentence would work better as passive clauses.
• "is presented"--> "has been presented"
• link some combination of "art deco sterling silver"; the "art deco" should definitely be capitalised
• "the base of the trophy itself" make it clear that this is the original trophy; furthermore, they have only moved onto the base relatively recently.
• "Since 1960, the driver receives...and drinks a bottle of milk, a tradition started after the 1936 event." This sentence is a mess: tenses, meaning, clarity is all lacking.
• "from a prize pool" unnecessary
• "a hand-made quilt from Jeanetta Holder at the winners' photo shoot the day following the race" ??? this convoluted sentence provides absolutely no clarification
• "his last, a span of two decades. He won his" --> "his last, winning his"
• "his last (to date)" MOS:RELTIME
• "Juan Pablo Montoya had to wait the longest time between his maiden victory at the 2000 race, and his second win followed 15 years later at the 2015 event" between distinguishes two items; only one (the maiden victory) is provided.
• "Troy Ruttman is the youngest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 22 years and 80 days old when he won the 1952 event. Al Unser is the oldest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 47 years and 360 days old when he won the 1987 race." Unnecessary repetition: can be combined into one sentence (e.g. "TR and AU are the youngest and oldest 500 winners, triumphing at the age of 22 years and 80 days and 47 years and 360 days respectively")
• "It has been won by 52 American drivers in 74 editions of the race" --> "52 American drivers have won 74 editions of the race"
• " followed by British and Brazilian racers who have each achieved victory eight times amongst five and four drivers, respectively." convoluted, please rephrase.
• "There have been seven countries who have produced only one winner" --> "Seven countries have produced only one winner"
• "There have been two editions, the 1924 and 1941 races, where two drivers sharing a car ..." --> "In the 1924 and 1941 races, two drivers sharing a car..."

The tables themselves look good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AirshipJungleman29: Made changes based on your points. What else needs addressing? EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not very many changes, and what you have done seems to have decreased the quality of the prose. I would suggest a rethink. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Further changes to the prose have been made EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @AirshipJungleman29: Have made more changes to the prose and have put the former names of the race into a note EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regreful oppose on lead prose quality, thus violating criteria 1) and 2). Half a dozen issues remain from the first pass, and the first paragraph has only gotten more convoluted and stilted since then, with repetition and trivia taking up space useful information could use. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I have made more changes to the article but am not sure whether they are improvements or not EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Have worked on the lead and removed much of the existing trivia EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have colscopes for a few of the cells (Laps through KPH), but not the rest- add !scope=col to the other header cells as well. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup 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 01:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All issues seem to be addressed. Table layout is good and is well written. Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 16:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was first held in 1911 after IMS founders James A. Allison, Carl G. Fisher, Arthur C. Newby and Frank H. Wheeler began experimenting with a long-distance auto race." Do we really need this list of names? And further, I find this awkward phrasing anyhow. Maybe something more like "It was first held in 1911 after the track's owners had experimented with several other long-distances auto races over the previous two years."
• "The race was not held from 1917 to 1918 and.." It seems odd to have a range for just two years; how about simply "The race was not held in 1917 or 1918 and.."
• "Following 33 drivers qualifying for the event by completing a four-lap time trial, they are positioned in rows of three.." Two issues with this sentence. Firstly, I really don't think it is very well written, and secondly, it implies that was always the case, but it seems to have differed in early years. A simply clarification stating that this was the case for most of the race's history would suffice on this point, I think.
• "Juan Pablo Montoya holds the record for the longest period of time between two victories – 15 years between the 2000 and 2015 races." Might it be worth adding after this that Castroneves has the longest span between first and last win?
• "52 American drivers have.." Per the MOS, don't start a sentence with a number. Also, this needs context to explicitly mention that the race has been won more times by Americans than any other nationality.
• "The first winner in 1911 was.." This would be better as "The winner of the first race was.."
• "..who was also the most recent first-time winner" This feels unnecessary.
• "Two Indianapolis 500s, in 1924 and 1941, were won by two drivers sharing a car." It feels like it would be relevant to add in the context from note c that relief drivers were used in four other years, but not recognized as race winners.
• "Two Indianapolis 500s.." Maybe "Two editions of the Indianapolis 500.."
• "Team Penske has won the most races as a car entrant with 18 since their first in 1972." This could do with a footnote, as in the table these wins are listed under three separate entrants.
• "E.C. Patterson" Per the MOS the initials should be spaced: "E. C. Patterson", same for "H.C.S. Motor Company".
• The table has a column labelled "Make", described as "Make of car and engine", but many of the items on the list are Models, not Makes: Peugeot L76, Maserati 8CTF, Dallara DW12.
• It would seem worth adding a footnote somewhere in the "By car make" section, that since ?2009? all chassis have been provided by Dallara.

That's it on the prose and tables. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harrias: Have made changes to the list based on your points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – with the changes made, I'm happy this meets the FL criteria. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, we've reached the end of the 1990s! While it tropical doesn't get as much as attention as the Latin pop field, it was still a great year for this field! As much as I love the 90s, I am so ready to forward to the 2000s! Erick (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 16 should be https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1999-01-30/
• Ref 62 should be https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1999-12-18/
• Ref 63 should be https://www.billboard.com/charts/latin-tropical-airplay/1999-12-25/
• Archive all references.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 11:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Víctor Manuelle also had the final one of 1999" => "Víctor Manuelle also had the final number one of 1999"
• "and is his fifth number one overall." => "and was his fifth number one overall."
• "had the longest consecutive run at number one in 1999" => either "had the longest continuous run at number one in 1999" or "had the longest unbroken run at number one in 1999"
• "Jennifer Lopez reached number one for the first time with "No Me Ames", a duet with Marc Anthony and" => "Jennifer Lopez reached number one for the first time with "No Me Ames", a duet with Marc Anthony, and"
• "and was the only female artist to do so on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1999" => "and was the only female artist to top the Tropical Airplay chart in 1999" (currently it says she was the only female to have her first number one during 1999, and while that it true I think the point you are actually trying to make is that she was the only female to reach number one at all (see also her photo caption)
• "Marc Anthony also achieved his 12th number one" => "Marc Anthony achieved his 12th number one later in the year" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: I looked at the captions for the last two images (I don't think Chris commented on those), and made minor edits; feel free to revert. Images are appropriately licensed, and illustrate the article appropriately. Btw, you might (or might not) be interested in reviewing List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments, I went ahead and addressed the issues you brought up. @Dank: Thank you for help! Erick (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have added archives for the rest of the references. If you have time would you mind reviewing my FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017). -- EN-Jungwon 08:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It remained in place for only a single week before being replaced by "Mi PC" by Juan Luis Guerra" → "It remained in the top spot for a week before being replaced by "Mi PC" by Juan Luis Guerra."
• "which had previously topped the chart in the week ending December 12, 1998,[4] and spent two further weeks at number one in 1999 for a total of five." → "Before its two-week stint at number one, "Mi PC" had previously topped the chart in the week ending December 12, 1998, spending a total of five weeks at number one."
• "Víctor Manuelle also had the final number one of 1999 with" this implies that there were two individuals who had a final number one song for 1999. I believe you are trying to say that Victor Manuelle, along with Juan Luis Guerra, had the final number one of the year. If that's the case then rewrite this sentence to → "Like Guerra in 1998, Víctor Manuelle had the last number one song of the year, with "Pero Dile", which was the longest-running number one song of 1999, spending nine weeks at the top."
  • Interjecting to say....that isn't the point that's being made. The article is saying that Victor Manuelle had the year's first number one and he also had the year's final number one. I think this sentence is fine as it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gotcha, I had to re-read it and I agree that the sentence is fine as is. Ignore that Erick =) – jona ✉ 13:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Mi PC" was succeeded by Jerry Rivera's song "Ese", which remained on top of the chart for eight weeks and was his fifth number one overall." → "Jerry Rivera's "Ese" superseded "Mi PC", dominating the top spot for eight consecutive weeks and earning the distinction of being his fifth overall number one on the chart."
• "Jennifer Lopez reached number one for the first time with "No Me Ames", a duet with Marc Anthony, and was the only female artist to top the Tropical Airplay chart in 1999" → "Jennifer Lopez achieved her first number one on the Tropical Airplay chart with "No Me Ames", performed in collaboration with Marc Anthony, and was the sole female artist to attain the summit during the year."
• That's all I have. – jona ✉ 12:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @AJona1992 Done I'll review your article either tomorrow or next week. Erick (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good job on another FA-worthy list. Best – jona ✉ 16:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The career of Britsh designer Alexander McQueen spanned from his graduation in 1992 to his death in 2010. During this time, he produced 36 own-label womenswear collections, each with its own name and distinct aesthetic. McQueen used fashion to explore themes of romanticism, sexuality, and death, drawing inspiration from everything he loved, including art, nature, history, film, and his own life. He introduced groundbreaking concepts like the bumster trouser and the armadillo shoe. At his best, he was a magnificent showman who kept audiences enthralled with unique ideas and blockbuster runway shows, every one of which has sufficient coverage to merit its own article someday. In the meantime, I present this summary of his works. Long live McQueen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, spot checks not done. Version reviewed:

• Suggest archiving all links.

• Done

• Ref 4: BBC News should be wikilinked.

• Done

• Ref 12: Not sure what is happening here, it seems to be a weird way to WP:CITEBUNDLE. Perhaps the individual citations can be placed next to the inspiration it is citing, or remove some of these?

• Each one corresponds to one factor and is necessary to support that factor. I don't see anything in CITEBUNDLE prohibiting the way I've done it, and I prefer not to place them in the sentence as it creates visual clutter which is difficult for me to process as a person with ADHD.

• "Fairer, Robert; Wilcox, Claire (2016)." Remove the page number.

• Done (this appears to be a duplicate of your final comment?)

• "Bowles, Hamish (2014)." Is this Hamish Bowles? If so, wikilink.
• "Callahan, Maureen (2014)" Is this Maureen Callahan?
• "Wilson, Andrew (2015)." Wikilink Simon & Schuster

• Above 3 done

• "Fairer, Robert; Wilcox, Claire (2016)." There's an unwanted page number in this ref.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Z1720 I've fixed most and commented on one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Comments have been addressed. Not sure about ref 12, but I do not see anything on Wikipedia against this so I won't oppose based on this. Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This article concerns itself with McQueen's own-label womenswear collections." - personally I don't like "meta" comments that say "this article is about such-and-such". I would remove this - the first sentence of the lead covers it IMO

• Per MOS:SELFREF, they're not prohibited. In fact, it specifically says "Similarly, many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section." I prefer to keep it in so no one questions why this doesn't cover his menswear or the Givenchy collections.

• "romanticized survival through tragedy" - McQueen was British so UK spelling should be used i.e. romanticised
• "human-animal hybridization" - same here
• "centers the widows" - same here ("centres") also the word "on" is missing before "the"

• The absence of "on" is intentional - I'm using "centre" as a verb, in the sense of "to put something in the center"

• "Collaboration with Philip Treacy to memorialize" - US spelling again
• "Final fully-realized collection" - and again :-)

• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brit Eng spellings fixed, and I responded to the other requests. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code (you have just a |+ there now); if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Season becomes !scope=col | Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1992 graduation collection becomes !scope=row | 1992 graduation collection. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. If you think the title of the collection is the "primary"/"defining" cell of each row, you can make that the header/scope cell instead, though consider moving it to the first column instead of the second if you do so.
• 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 20:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• These changes are now implemented, as far as I can tell. It's my first time using this stuff so let me know if you see any issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this list for promotion contingent on the table formatting issues listed above. I would also like to see sortable columns for the collection, date, location, and possibly season columns, but this isn't strictly necessary. If you do add sorting, check the following items:

• In the collection column, The Birds, The Hunger, The Overlook, The Dance of the Twisted Bull, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Widows of Culloden, The Girl Who Lived in the Tree, The Horn of Plenty, and La Dame Bleue should each be sorted by their second word (for instance, sort by "Birds" instead of "The Birds").
• In the show date column, make sure March 1993 sorts correctly (it may not be automatically recognized as a date).
• In the show location column, The Ritz Hotel, La Conciergerie, Le Zénith Arena, and Le Centquatre should be sorted by their second word.

See WP:SORT if you need help or ping me here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RunningTiger123, sorry for the delayed response. I've made the table sortable as suggested. To be honest, I don't particularly see the value in making the date column sortable as that is the default order, but I've done it. The rest should be functioning as requested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

• Support. Just one minor niggle from me which won’t affect my support: the shoe famously worn: I’d drop the word entirely - we’re already highlighting one notable item of footwear worn by a notable individual, so it already stands out from the norm. That’s my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks SchroCat! Tweaked to say "often worn by". I think leaving it at "worn by" accidentally implies it was created solely for her, so hopefully that's a good substitute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do plan on doing this with all the award categories. (: This award recognizes excellence in the depiction of queer people in limited / anthology series. It's probably one of the most complex awards by GLAAD that I've worked on, having gone through multiple changes and reorganizations throughout the decades. For more details, just go to the page itself. Most recently given to HBO's The White Lotus, if anyone has seen it. "These gay lists... they're trying to murder me." --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back. A quick comment:
• Check the order of your cites for 1990, 2003 and 2008 ... I can't tell if the order is reversed because you want it that way, but I'm guessing that in this particular ref format, it shouldn't be reversed. (If you separate the rows, then, sure.) Also, there's something weird going on with the second 2009 ref. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. :D Regarding the numbering, since I leave the lede last, I often end up reusing sources from the list at the top of the page, causing them to gain a new, and lower, number. I am curious, is that a FL criterion? Having the references in numerical order? As for the 2009 ref, yeah, my bad. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, yes, it's required at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: All right. Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank I believe Panagiotis was trying to list the citations in order (nominees first and then the winner). I have had 3 FLCs pass even though they have the wrong order of citation numbers. Is this requirement actually enforced? -- EN-Jungwon 05:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was, but I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's apparently some disagreement about the order of refs, so I'll try again to do something useful :) The table coding looks good, I don't see any prose problems in the tables, and I've checked the sorting in all the tables (for non-numerical columns).
• Btw, you might (or might not) be interested in reviewing WP:Featured list candidates/List of COM-clade families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing my review.
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. I checked sorting as above and 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. There are no images.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. You might be interested in reviewing (when this link turns blue) WP:Featured list candidates/List of malvid families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add table key for the double dagger and green background.

• Done.

• The 1993 entry: The source doesn't directly say that "Doing Time on Maple Drive" won the award, I feel like I may be misinterpreting the source so can you please clarify this for me? Also, the movie's Wikipedia article has no mention of this award and a quick Google search didn't reveal much. The second reference (which seems to list all the winners) doesn't list any winners for that year. It is also not listed in the page template ({{GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Movie or Limited Series}}).

• Although the Variety source doesn't state this explicitly, the "Past Winners" source does show how Doing Time on Maple Drive won in the TV Movie category. The fact that the Wikipedia article and template don't show this isn't really relevant. Wouldn't be the first time that omissions would exist on GLAAD-related pages. Here is another source on the TV film: https://www.tvweek.com/in-depth/2005/04/glaad-awards-15-years-of-recog/. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 22 doesn't mention the network of the series.
• "The Fear Street Trilogy" should sort under "Fear".

• Done.

Thats all. -- EN-Jungwon 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you have time would you mind reviewing the FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017) -- EN-Jungwon 05:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The second paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing. You say that The Women of Brewster Place won in 1990 but don't specify what award it won. Then you say "In 1994, Fox's Doing Time on Maple Drive became the first television film to be recognized by GLAAD." - was this the same award? Presumably it was, because apparently after that win, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories". How do these different categories tie in with the winners in the table, where there never seems to be more than one winner in any given year.....?
  • The Women of Brewster Place likely won in the "Miniseries" category. Unfortunately, the nominees list by GLAAD doesn't explicitly state each category's name for their first ceremony, but given that it's a miniseries and a few years later, Tales of the City won in the TV Mini-series category (as indicated by the "Past Winners" source), it can be inferred that WoBP won in that category. Doing Time on Maple Drive then was the first TV movie (rather than miniseries) to be recognized, in the TV Movie category; unsurprisingly. As indicated by GLAAD's Letterboxd list, both of these separate categories are treated as one, as they're both precursors of the unified Television Movie/TV Movie and Mini-series category. Which was then expanded to include anthology series, then separated... God, the whole thing is giving me brain damage. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, to confirm, "various television films and miniseries would be recognized as different categories" isn't meant to indicate that these different categories existed together in any one year.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Yeah, based on the "Past Winners" source, at no point up until 1999 did GLAAD recognize both a miniseries and TV movie in the same year. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "By 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards," => "In 2003, during the 14th GLAAD Media Awards,"
  • I get it, but that's part of the problem with this award. It's whole history is a mess, and there isn't much info from GLAAD. I do know that by this year, GLAAD was recognizing both TV movies and miniseries within a single category, but I'm not sure if this is when the process started. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all that is known is that the change happened "by" 2003, then "during the 14th awards" isn't appropriate. "By 2003 and the 14th awards" would probably work..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed it in a different manner. Hopefully it's acceptable. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "American Horror Story winning for its second season" => "American Horror Story won for its second season"
  • Done.
• Note b does not need a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Chris, do you happen to know if references are supposed to be in numerical order within one cell at FLC? See above. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always thought they were, but when someone pushed back on that at a previous FAC/FLC (I forget the exact details) I couldn't actually find anywhere that stated it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest (#25) nomination in this series. In this particular year it was all about Aretha, the Queen of Soul. Feedback as ever gratefully received and quickly acted upon.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The most successful artist of the year in chart terms was Aretha Franklin -- perhaps we can remove in chart terms, since the article is about chart performances that year and is also followed by the number of weeks she spent on it.
• Later in the year, Franklin gained her third chart-topper of the year -- perhaps the second mention of year can be removed - as 1967 is also mentioned in the latter sentence.
• That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done. Thanks for your kind words! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "She is regarded by some as one of the greatest singers of all time and nicknamed the "Queen of Soul"": The main problem I have with any sentence equivalent to "X is the best" is that you can generally find a source that likes "X" for any "X", so sentences like this are usually nonfalsifiable and ambiguous. Can you say something about what set her apart, or mention some "best of" list that she's on that carried some weight? Also: I think I'd start the sentence with "Nicknamed the "Queen of Soul", she ...".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, the writing looks good. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - thanks for your review, I have addressed the Aretha point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent choice. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For File:Aaron Neville.jpg, why is the caption "in later life" rather than a specific date? The description places him at a 1999 event, and I think that year would be more beneficial as the current wording limits room for ambiguity as "in later life" could mean a number of different dates.
• Link David Browne (journalist) and Douglas Wolk in their citation.

Everything looks good to me. I only have two minor comments. Once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC on the basis of its prose. If you have the time and energy, I would appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, which is about a more contemporary R&B song. However, if that is not possible, I completely understand. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses! Everything looks good to me, and I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

• Licencing all OK.
• Images are elevant, adequately clear, suitably positioned, with alt text.
• Appropriate captions supported either with inline citations in the text or by the table.

• Pass for image review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• No issues with suitablity of sources.
• No formatting issues to be resolved as far as I can see.
• one of the biggest stars not only in black music but across all genres - what part of the source supports this? (Source does say, e.g. "one of the biggest international recording stars in all of pop", but I don't think that's quite the same)
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: - reworded -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing alarming found from reviewing the top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No other questions from the sources I looked at; they all supported the content without plagiarism or paraphrasing issues.

• Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• first and only chart-topper - "first and" is redundant, but could be kept for flow of prose.
• In 1967, Billboard published a chart ranking - is it worth adding that this was weekly?
  • Added "weekly" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a couple of really minor script-suggested tweaks, please revert any that are objectionable.

• Nice work, ChrisTheDude. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After recently expanding the main article of Filipina actress Angel Aquino, here's a list of her performances in film, television and stage which I've compiled and tailored to other filmography FLs. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "she again played the antagonistic part of a vindictive ex-wife": Had she played a vindictive ex-wife before? If not, then maybe: "She again played a vindictive antagonist, this time as the ex-wife ..." (Done)
• "A Lullaby to the Sorrowful Mystery" needs to sort under "L". I don't think it makes much difference, but I'd sort "Rich Woman" under R.
• In ref #62, things are italicized that shouldn't be.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and 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 list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. You might be interested in reviewing List of nitrogen-fixing-clade families. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking this review and for your support Dank. I have actioned all your comments. I'd be happy to have a look at your FLC as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much. Actually ... if you could hold off, I might be restructuring that list soon. If I do, I'll post here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. Ping me when it’s ready. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pseud 14, it's ready, I didn't make any changes. (There will be a minor change to my next nomination instead.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "She made her screen debut with a minor role in the action drama Mumbaki (1996).[1] She went on to appear...." - I would join these two short sentences together
• "Her first television appearance was as a presenter in the lifestyle show" => "Her first television appearance was as a presenter of the lifestyle show"
• "Also in 2013, she returned on stage" => "Also in 2013, she returned to the stage"
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude. All comments have been actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question about this part, "who has appeared extensively in film, television, and stage productions". Why is the "extensively" part necessary? I can see that she has starred in a lot of films, but it seems like a good portion of her television work is guest spots and she has only appeared in two stage productions. Is she notable for appearing in abnormally high amount of productions?

I have removed it.

• Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question about this part, "and starred with Isabelle Huppert in the psychological thriller Captive". Why is it necessary to point out one of her co-stars? It is not done (unless I missed something) in any other areas of the lead, and I do not see why her appearing in a film with Huppert is notable enough to highlight and give weight in the lead.

Filipino actors very seldom collaborate with foreign and multi-awarded actors such as the likes of Isabelle Huppert. I think collaborations with thespians such as Huppert is, to a certain extent, notable for Aquino's profile and would somehow be worthy of mentioning.

• I am not fully convinced by this explanation, but it is not a major point and will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Her appearance in the Swan Dive music video is not mentioned in the lead. While I am sure this is more minor in the grand scheme of her career, it just seems a little off to have a separate section that is not mentioned in the lead at all.

I have tailored these with FL filmographies such as as those of Jessica Chastain, Amy Adams, and Cate Blanchett. These actresses, for the most part, have appeared in music videos or video games in special, guest or voice roles but none have been mentioned in the lead since more weight is given to their film, television, and stage work. I believe there is no absolute rule for "music video" appearances in particular, that it should be mentioned in the lead. Its inclusion overall would still be acceptable since it is still considered a "screen" appearance.

• Fair enough. I just thought it was odd to have a complete section not mentioned in the lead, but I see your point, especially if the music video appearance was minor in the grand scheme of her career, so this should be fine by me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. I could not find much to comment on, and I just have a few minor questions and comments. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Just to be clear, I have limited my review to just the prose. I have not looked through any of the citations. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review Aoba47. I have provided my responses to your comments. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. I will endeavor to provide my comments on your PR this weekend, as I am currently traveling with very spotty internet. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Take as much time as you need. I plan on keeping the peer review up until the end of the month at least so do not feel like you have to rush or anything. Safe travels! Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two years later, she again played a vindictive antagonist in the family drama series And I Love You So (2015)." - "Again" could be omitted, although I understand why it is used.

Removed

• "She also appeared in" - Really nitpick-y on my part but you could remove "also".

Removed

• The A.V. Club is in italics everywhere except ref 66

Fixed

• Some refs like 115 and 129 link to the same YouTube channel but the publisher is written differently as "ABS-CBN" and "ABS-CBN Entertainment"

Fixed, so that all YouTube links to the ABS-CBN Entertainment channel are written as such.

Thanks for the media review on my current FAC and I'd appreciate anything re: prose. I can tell this is a really high-quality list and the lead section looks really well-researched. Great work!--NØ 07:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review MaranoFan. Appreciate the kind words. I'll be down to review your FAC on prose (soon as I return from traveling this weekend). Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this list for a well-deserved promotion to FL. I think I can pass the source review as well, since it has a clear, consistent ref formatting and all of the information is supported by the sources.--NØ 04:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and really appreciate you doing a review of the sources too MaranoFan. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest (#24) FLC in this series, and this time it's Motown Motown Motown!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change Hold On! I'm a Comin']]" to Hold On! I'm a Comin']]{{-"}}
• Archive all references.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 09:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: - done the first one. Re: the second one, I can't get the IABot to even load up, but then refs being archived is not a requirement for FL status so hopefully that point isn't a blocker....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 09:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll keep trying the IABot..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• issue dated April 2, 1966 and Top Selling R&B -- comma after 1966 per MOS:DATECOMMA
• the greatest length of time spent -- only a suggestion (optional), perhaps something along the lines of the longest-running or longest time spent
• Nothing more to quibble. Another solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If you have spare time and interest, I would also appreciate your input/comments on a current FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: spot checks not done. Version reviewed:

• Ref 4: is this the same book? If so, the editor should be included in the reference.
• Ref 7: Is this Stephen Thomas Erlewine? If so, wikilink.
• No concerns with the quality of the sources.

Image review:

• No concerns with licencing.
• Alt text used, no px, no caption concerns.

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments above were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just two very minor points from me:

• The intro mentions his recording of Bob Dylan's song "Blowin' in the Wind", but it doesn't look like it being a cover of Dylan's song is cited. Perhaps the argument is per WP:SKYBLUE, but if not, then it shouldn't be hard to find a supporting citation.
• Bob Gulla could be wikilined in the Works cited.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after promoting the 2012 and 2020 Summer Olympic medal tables to said status and saving the 1984 Summer edition's table from demotion, I thought I would do another nomination for another Olympic edition that I mildly liked. I followed how the other ones I promoted/saved in improving this list. I will take any constructive comments in improving it. Birdienest81talk 20:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Given that we have images of medal winners (including one of the athlete who won most golds) and that the specific topic of the article is medal winners, I would include that image in the infobox rather than a boring photo of a stadium
• "during 2010 winter edition" => "during the 2010 winter edition"
• "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation have won" => "By default, the table is ordered by the number of gold medals the athletes from a nation won"
• "Two bronze medals were awarded Daniela Maier and Fanny Smith for a third-place tie freestyle women's ski cross event" => "Two bronze medals were awarded to Daniela Maier and Fanny Smith for a third-place tie in the freestyle women's ski cross event"
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done - I have made the necessary adjustments based on your comments. Thank you.

--Birdienest81talk 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Biathletes Johannes Thingnes Bø, Quentin Fillon Maillet, and Marte Olsbu Røiseland, and cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov won the most total medals at the games with five each.": The writing is good, so I'm reduced to talking about commas (which I don't enjoy doing). "and cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov" requires either a comma before and after, or neither. A third option is: "Cross-country skier Alexander Bolshunov and biathletes Johannes Thingnes Bø, Quentin Fillon Maillet, and Marte Olsbu Røiseland won the most total medals ...".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the three images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. Please consider reviewing List of early-diverging flowering plant families or List of basal superasterid families. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – Not a full review from me, but I just took a quick glance at it and saw that reference 11 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giants2008: Done -- I've added a publisher.

--Birdienest81talk 18:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idio

• Just reference 3 needs to be archived like the rest. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Birdienest81. (I see you're busy with other stuff, I just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this review.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC) My mistake. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Idiosincrático (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Missing full author's name in ref 8
• Forgot "G" in title for ref 9
• I would just link NBC sports every time
• Could consider adding Agence France-Presse as the author in ref 7

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• No issues – Aza24 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24: Done - I have addressed all your comments and made the necessary corrections based off of them.

--Birdienest81talk 07:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured list in the hope that it will join its three predecessors with the status. The list itself is fairly straightforward (although its lower reaches are shrouded in mystery), and I've tried to summarise the near-farcial changes to rankings and seedings proposed and reverted by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. Thanks for all improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "the WPBSA voted to seed only two players into the last 16" - seeding them "into" the last 16 makes it sound like they got a bye to that round, is that the case? If so, that isn't my understanding of what seeding usually means......
• "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded the first round" - should that be "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded in the first round".....?
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've reworded, to hopefully make it clear that the players were exempted to certain rounds; let me know if it needs further work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• Before this, the defending champion was seeded first, and the previous year's runner-up second, for each tournament.[1][2][3 - maybe flip to "before this, for each tournament the defe..." As it reads a bit easier to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Players' performances in the previous three World Snooker Championships (1977, 1978 and 1979) - we've gone from speaking about 1977, we should prefix this para that we are talking about 79/80. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Professional Snooker Association - is a link appropriate? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially, but such an article would be close to a permastub. Seems to have been a fairly short-lived thing, which wasn't heard of after leading players got their way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• were exempted - such a weird word for recieving a bye. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't really thought about it before, but to me a bye seems to be about a specific round, when there aren't enough players to fill all the slots. The Guardian source used has "the traditional eight exemptions ... revised the number of exemption to 16, number 1-8 to have byes and numbers 9-16 to meet eight qualifiers in the first round". I looked for other examples of "exemption", and found a few, e.g. "[Hallet was] exempted until the seventh qualifying round of the world championship" (The Guardian, 21 Jan 1997, p.22); "This year the top 16 'world ranked players, from an entry of 103, are exempted until the Sheffield stage" (The Daily Telegraph, 17 January 1985, p.33); "he succumbed to Rosa, whose world ranking of 119 exempted him to the ninth round" (The Independent, January 11, 1998). So I think I prefer to keep the current text, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• The table seems wierdly sorted - what makes certainly players higher than others for when they are the same points? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a mystery. It would seem logical to sort players on the same number of points based on their most recent performances, but this doesn't look to be the case for the ordering of Spencer and Thorburn, for example. No further details in sources as far as I'm aware. (In later years, of course, it got much more complicated, with merit points, half-points, A points, and frames won taken into account.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we have a player who didn't play in any of the three events (in 24 and 26)? Also, why are they above players who did take part? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a mystery. Snooker Scene only listed players with points, so I have no idea where Turner would have got the details for lower places from. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The succession box is in a weird place. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• this has been the case for earlier season articles, following a comment that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." at the 1976/1977 discussion - or is the issue that I've placed it oddly in a different way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski. Thanks. I've responded above. Let me know what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is my first FL review and I am not particularly familiar with snooker, but this nom has languished for so long I'm hoping my comments will still be of use. Fortunately there's not much to gripe about!

• Prose in the lead reads fine and is properly sourced. It's understandable for someone with no snooker experience, although obviously it will be more interesting for a fan :)
• This list looks very much in line with the previous 3 that also have FLs, except it doesn't have the little infoboxes with the top 3 players that 1977/1978 and 1976/1977. Why is that? Shouldn't the format be consistent for the series of articles?

• This was discontinued from the 1978/1979 list, after the following comment and reply in the FAC discussion. There is also a bit of inconsistency in the tables between years, but I've been reluctant to make changes to the earlier articles as the reviewers for them were satisfied at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the boxes on the right? It looks like three infoboxes on top of each other. The info is in the table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• I realised that they contain some uncited information, too. I can't think of any logic for including "top three", so removed them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Reasonable!

• The only source I had a question about was Chris Tucker's website, but I see that it has been discussed at previous Featured content reviews including Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1976/1977/archive1 and I am satisfied with that.

• Understandable that this would be questioned. I raised this source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Chris_Turner's_Snooker_Archive. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it will be an easy support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your review, PMC. Hopefully my responses are satisfactory. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. Support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've made a minor edit to the ref numbering in the second paragraph. Apart from that I have no major issues with this list. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 5th article from the music bank series winners that I am nominating at FLC. As always, any feedback is very much appreciated. -- EN-Jungwon 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, looking at the page's prose, I can support this candidate's promotion. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• The license on File:SECHSKIES Eighteen Preview.jpg needs checking (I can't read Korean).
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've skimmed the prose and made minor edits; nothing big jumps out at me. Feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all nonnumeric sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine, except as above. (Some reviewers will say that alt text is missing; some won't, since the captions cover what normally appears in alt text. The question is above my pay grade.)
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• You might be interested in reviewing WP:Featured list candidates/List of COM-clade families/archive1 or (when this link turns blue) WP:Featured list candidates/List of malvid families/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dank, I have replaced the image and added alt text to all the images. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 02:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise this is the last list of goals ahah, they're just so straightforward and systematic, I love it. Oliver Giroud is the top goalscorer for France and is one of the greatest to have played the game. He has scored over 50 goals and is still active at international level, most recently playing in the 2022 FIFA World Cup final. Thank you all in advance for your reviews :) Idiosincrático (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Colon in the image caption should be a semi-colon
• "11th November 2011" => "11 November 2011"
• "and he has netted twice in a match on ten occasions, excluding his hat-trick" => "and he has netted twice in a match on ten other occasions"
• "With France, Giroud won the 2018 FIFA World Cup, whilst also reaching" => "With France, Giroud won the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and also reached"
• "often described as a 'complete striker'." - any reason why this is in single quote marks but the earlier descriptions were in double quote marks?
• "France manager Didier Deschamps believes" - I would say "France manager Didier Deschamps said in [whenever]", as he won't be France manager for ever
• "even when Giroud doesn't score" => "even when Giroud does not score"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All addressed, thank you legend @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Phikia (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink Thierry Henry
• Reference 3 "France 1-0 USA" has the incorrect access date and is missing Associated Press in the agency field
• Reference 4 "France stun Germany 2-1 in friendly" is missing Reuters as the agency
• Reference 5 "Olivier Giroud scores hat trick as France crush Paraguay 5-0" is missing the Associated Press as the agency
• "but took six games to do so." - needs a minor rewrite since this text is identical to the ESPN reference that verifies this information
• "and also reached the 2022 FIFA World Cup final" - needs to be verified with an additional reference since The Athletic does not mention this fact
• Reference 17 "France beat Denmark on the backs of Alexandre Lacazette and Olivier Giroud"." has the incorrect publication date and is missing the Press Association in the agency field
• Reference 25 "Italy 1-3 France: Anthony Martial and Olivier Giroud score in French away win" is missing Agence France-Presse in the agency field

That's all I've got for this review EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Cheers @EnthusiastWorld37, Reference 17 (now 18) already had the correct publication date (30 March 2015), but I was close to listing the agency as PA Sport, but I quickly learnt they only changed their name in 2018, after the article was published. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Must be because I'm located in a much different part of the world that I noticed a publication date discrepancy. Nevertheless I will lend my support for this list to be promoted EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited this list significantly over the past few days and now feel it meets featured standard. It's a list of the managers who've won the top level of English football since its inception. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "was the Football League First Division when it was replaced by the Premier League," - this does not make grammatical sense. Also, the First Division did not technically exist until the Second Division was added in 1892.
• Thomas H. McIntosh should sort under M. The H is not part of his surname
• I would suggest that The Wednesday should sort under W
• What's with the unexplained asterisk by Frank Watt's name in 1906-07?
  • Was there by error, removed. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The order in which the managers are listed in the Won the League as a player and a manager table seems to be completely random, am I missing something?
  • It's ordered chronologically, so the first person to win the league as a player and manager to the last as shown by the last column. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't believe I didn't notice that :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In that table, why do some entries have multiple seasons on the same line separated by a comma but others do not?
  • Rectified, so it's all commas. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I'm sure you'll add Arteta in a few weeks ;) -- Idiosincrático (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why there are so few images (nor why they are all bunched together under one caption). I think we should display every relevant image available on the side. Most awards/accolades lists do this.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement for there to be images all the way down the side of the table. There are four images, I think that's enough. @Indopug:. NapHit (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• "The top level of the English football league system from its formation in 1888 was the Football League, until the introduction of a Second Division in 1892 when it became known as the Football League First Division." - Needs to be verified since the Premier League Origin webpage does not contain this information.
• George Graham in the tables doesn't need to have the "George Graham (footballer, born 1944)" part in the sortname templates since the article links to just "George Graham"
• The two notes will require referencing to a reliable source to verify that they are correct
• It should be mentioned that the Financial Times citation is paywalled
• "Guardiola becomes England's most successful foreign manager". Reuters." - Simon Evans is missing as the author of this reference
• "City show the right way to win, says Pellegrini" - Nick Mulvenney is missing as the author of this reference
• The References might be better off archived for preservation purposes

That's all I have EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, @EnthusiastWorld37:, I've addressed them all apart from the archive one. I'm more than happy to archive the refs but I'm not sure what tool you need to use to archive all the refs for the page at once. I really don't want to individually archive every ref. NapHit (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's IABot that will help one archive references EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @EnthusiastWorld37:, that bot is great! All references have been archived now. NapHit (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Division was initially raised in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then formed again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured. This was previously nominated although the process stalled as I ended up on a wikibreak. Back in action and looking to finalize this one. The points raised in the previously nomination have hopefully all been addressed. Look forward to any feedback to whip this into shape as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Galbraith Lowry Cole sorts under L, suggesting that Lowry was part of his surname, yet in the notes column you refer to him as just Cole, suggesting that Lowry was in fact a forename. Which is correct?

  After taking a look at his article and family articles, it should just be Cole. I have updated so it should search correctly now.

• "Lambton was incapacitated on 12 September 1917" - complete sentence so needs a full stop
• "Lipsett was killed in action on 14 October 1918" - and this one
• "The division was reformed in England" - this one too :-)

  The above all addressed

• "On 13 December 1934, Brind was temporary assigned" - temporarily, surely?

  Quite, and fixed.

• "On 1 January 1978, the formation was redesignated as the 4th Armoured Division" - another note that needs a full stop
• "The division was reformed in England" - this one likewise :-)

  Added for both

• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The first FLC for this was archived in May; I've checked the diff since then, and everything I said there still goes, so ...
• Support. Please consider reviewing my FLC nomination, or if there's some issue that is getting in the way of that, please tell me what it is. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. I'm running a 102 degree fever at the moment ... you should have seen me trying to write correct regex, it was a hoot ... so if that question came across as pointed, please ignore it, that's not what I was feeling. I just wonder sometimes why I don't get more reviews than I get ... it may be something simple that I'm missing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your review and comments. No worries about wording, and I am hoping you are feeling much better! Re: reviews, I use to try and do them but stopped many years ago as I never felt comfortable doing them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Idiosincrático (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image and source reviews – The one image used in the article has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text, so no problems there. Ref 82 is to a Who's Who website, which aren't typically the most reliable in the world. A better source for the Timothy Sullivan entry would be great, if possible. Otherwise, the sources are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for review and comments. I was able to access the Army List for 1999 and 2000 via Google Snippet View, and I am 99 per cent sure they support Sulivan as the GOC for the 4th Division during that period (via being able to see the index, what pages he is cited on, and what page details the 4th Division; snippet view does not allow to view the whole page to be 100 per cent). From the other entries in those two, it does not look like they are the older ones that also provide the appointment date. If anyone has full access to either, they could be used to supplement the Who's Who cite.

  I double checked the Gazette and The Times, and he is not mentioned in relation to the division in either (this also happened just after the Second World War too, not sure why the late 90s seems to be the same). Likewise, I couldn't find any reliable source that discusses appointments for the division or him in this period. If I recall correctly, I obtained the Who's Who cite after requesting assistance after exhausting all other resources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Red is a Pixar film with multiple nominations for Best Animated Film from multiple award organizations, although it won several, especially that from "Film Critics". Not that bad, but still a solid form for Pixar. This list has expanded to above 50,000 bytes, or the List of accolades received by Despicable Me 2-esque look. Chompy Ace 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question: Domee Shi is she/her on that page, so why does the caption say "Domee Shi received several awards and nominations for his direction"? - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, done. Chompy Ace 05:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I fixed a MOS:COMMA issue.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I'll defer on prose issues. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done.
• I hope you'll consider reviewing List of basal superasterid families or List of early-diverging flowering plant families. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "However, the film was shifted to its direct-to-streaming release on Disney+ due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while Turning Red being released in theaters in countries without the streaming service" => "However, the film was shifted to a direct-to-streaming release on Disney+ due to the COVID-19 pandemic, although it was still released in theaters in countries without the streaming service"
• Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 09:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In the infobox
  • Online Film Critics Society Awards is linked, but in the accolades table it is linked to Online Film Critics Society
  • Toronto Film Critics Association Awards is linked, but in the accolades table it is linked to Toronto Film Critics Association
• Not required but would it be better to change [[San Francisco Bay Area Film Critics Circle]] to [[San Francisco Bay Area Film Critics Circle Awards]] so that everything is consistent.
• Ref 40 & 41; they are both listed as requiring subscription to access but it appears that I am able to access it without a subscription. It appears that preview.houstonchronicle.com and www.houstonchronicle.com have been mixed up here. Could you double check this.

That all. Good job. -- EN-Jungwon 16:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 03:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more

• In the infobox change
  • [[Chicago Film Critics Association]] to [[Chicago Film Critics Association Awards]]
  • [[San Francisco Bay Area Film Critics Circle]] to [[San Francisco Bay Area Film Critics Circle Awards]]

-- EN-Jungwon 07:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 08:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you have time would you mind reviewing the FLC for List of Music Bank Chart winners (2017). -- EN-Jungwon 10:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because I started adding the accolades at the parent article, and then split into it due to the announcement of nominations by some award groups and organizations during the film's opening week, than Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The Way of Water and its sequels are more exciting and beautiful than the adorable-but-despicable Star Wars sequel trilogy. Chompy Ace 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment is that I don't think "Its story follows a Na'vi named Jake Sully (Worthington) as he and his family, under renewed human threat, seek refuge with the Metkayina clan of Pandora." really helps to explain what the film is about to anyone who hasn't seen it or the first one (like me). It doesn't say that Pandora is a planet or that Na'vi is a race that lives there. Could you explain in a tiny bit more detail? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 08:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I personally don't think there's a problem with FLC criterion #6 (stability), but I want to acknowledge that opinions differ on this. There have been new awards as recently as a few days ago, and there will undoubtedly be more coming. All things considered, I don't think that's a reason to hold up an FLC nomination.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. The one image is fine.
• 6. It is stable (but see above).
• Close enough for a support. Well done.
• Don't worry about this if you're busy, but I could really use another review on List of early-diverging flowering plant families ... I can't put up my next nomination until I get one more review on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got my review already ... but feel free to come review anyway! - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I remember seeing the first movies ages ago in school during class time... The Way of Water was actually the first movie I'd seen in years in theatres, but I hadn't seen the first in years, so I often didn't know what the hell was going on. XD Oh well, at least it had big blue men in loincloths. Anyway, great work on the list, but I have a few comments; sidenote, my math sucks.

According to the table, we have:

1. 38 outright "Wins".
2. 1 award still "Pending".
3. and 67 "Nominations" or "Losses".

However, the infobox shows only 36 "Wins". Moreover, we have 107 "Nominations", rather than 106.

Concerning this, there also appear to be a few discrepancies between the table and infobox.

1. The infobox states that the film received 0 Black Reel Awards, when the table says otherwise.
2. Critics' Choice Movie Awards: the table shows there were 6 nominations and 1 win; the infobox shows however only 5 nominations.
3. National Board of Review Awards: the infobox shows 2 awards from 2 wins; but it was only one award from one nomination as shown in the table.
4. New York Film Critics Circle Awards appears on the infobox but not the table.
5. San Diego Film Critics Society Awards: the infobox shows 0 wins but the table shows 1.
6. St. Louis Film Critics Association Awards: appears in infobox but not the table.
7. Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards: Table shows 1 win, whereas infobox shows 0.

Looking at a few other similar lists like this one, I'd recommend adding some brief info on the film's production. This would also help increase the size of the lead section, and hopefully ensure that the infobox doesn't indent the table to the left. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, done. Chompy Ace 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Also, sorry about making the mistake regarding the St. Louis awards and not appearing on the table. The only other recommendation concerning prose would be adding some brief info on production in the second paragraph. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, done. Chompy Ace 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I made an edit so that the table doesn't become sandwhiched. Let me know if you don't like it and would like to reverse it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, I don't like that in the References column in which refs are aligned left, which I like the middle one just like List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick and other lists do so (including List of accolades received by Toy Story 4), but it is done. Chompy Ace 23:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PanagiotisZois, I removed the production section per Special:Diff/1146641913, and other FLs such as List of accolades received by Toy Story 4, List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick, and List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film); these lists have their production details omitted. Chompy Ace 03:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, the section about production isn't something I'm that hardpressed about. Most necessary changes have been made, so based on prose, I support this promotion. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]