Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2024

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the newest UEFA competition and has been a welcome addition to the European football calendar. I'm going to address the big sticking point immediately which is that there are only two entries, soon to be three in a couple of months. The competition is new and guaranteed to run for more years to come, so although it's a small list at the moment, it will swell over the years. While I recognise this may be an issue, I do think this fact should be enough to ensure it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Only one accessiblity issue with the table- you can't use table-spanning cells as a "pseudo header" like you are for "Upcoming finals". Not just for screen-reader software (which won't treat it like a header at all), but even for regular browsers- the sorting doesn't work at all. Easiest fix is to just make that section have 2 tables - "List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals" (which could just be "UEFA Europa Conference League finals") and "Upcoming finals.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PresN:, I've just removed the upcoming finals bit, as that does feel like it's WP:CRYSTAL territory. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the reason this isn't being reviewed is because there are only two entries. This list is probably better off as a section of the UEFA Europa Conference League article for the time-being. I am going to nominate it for a merge. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit:

• "It was envisaged as a way for UEFA to accommodate" -> "It was created by UEFA to accommodate"
• My understanding is that UECL will shift to the (stupid) 36-team group stage along with UEL and UCL next year. As this list includes future finals, this format shift should be mentioned in the prose as well.
• "Matches are held over" -> "Knockout matches are held over"
• "The introduction of the Europa Conference League into European football was announced in 2018, with the competition starting in 2021." is too verbose, try "The competition was announced in 2018, and began in 2021."
• "The competition aimed" -> "UEFA created the competition in order to", i.e. don't personify the competition.
• "Italian and English have won" -> "Italian and English clubs have won"
• Both bullet points under "List of finals" should be removed- the reader doesn't need to have the wiklinks spelled out for them in a second place.
• The RSSSF source does not mention either the venues (for present and future finals) or attendance figures.
• IMO, future finals should be its own subsection in the "List of finals" section. Putting them in the same table doesn't make sense to me, and screws up the sort in most ever column.
  • List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals has a good solution for this
• The "performances" section doesn't have a source- add the RSSSF source here
• Sources look reliable and consistently formatted to me Brindille1 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Brindille1:, I've got most of them and will get the remainder when I'm back at home tomorrow or the day after. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything now @Brindille1:. Regarding the table, given @PresN:'s comments above, I'm reluctant to model the upcoming finals bit on the Champions League table as I think it doesn't meet MOS:DTT. It does need to be changed as it does mess up the sorting as is. A solution could be to have two separate tables? I think that solves both problems unless I'm missing something. NapHit (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TIL the pseudoheader is an accessibility issue. In that case two separate tables makes the most sense to me. Brindille1 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok split it into two tables, @Brindille1: NapHit (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NapHit I made a few small changes, namely removing the unused columns from the upcoming finals, and adding sub-headers to the "List of finals" section Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the small amount of sources, I am going to check them all. Version reviewed.

• Checked all sources to verify the information. If not listed below, there are no concerns.
• Ref 2: Could not verify "It was created by UEFA to accommodate at least 34 of its national associations". Where does it say this in the source?
• Ref 4: Article text: "in order to offer more matches for more clubs". Source text "“There will be more matches for more clubs" Suggest that this be reworded in the article.
• Ref 5: I don't know what that chart is trying to tell me so I'll AGF it.

Earwig does not detect any concerns. That's it for my review. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review @Z1720:, I've addressed your concerns. NapHit (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns resolved. I can support based on source review. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

I'm concerned that the length of this list, two past entries and two future entries, doesn't make this list long enough to qualify for FL status. While there's no de facto number of entries necessarily, the coordinators have chosen not to promote some lists that had more entries than this due to concerns of length. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on whether this list is long enough (2 events have taken place, 2 are set to in the future) to be considered for promotion @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair comment, and it was a bit of a gamble nomninating this with just two entries, soon to be three in a couple of weeks. But the list will go grow every year as the tournament is guaranteed to continue running for a while, and I can't see it being scrapped anytime soon. So it's whether this is justification enough for the list to be promoted. NapHit (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm on the fence. On one hand, by following the way other finals lists work, it comes out to 11 rows, which is typically just enough. Even though 3 of those rows are just a repackaged version of the 3rd table. But as you say, the list will grow, so whatever. My bigger concern, however, is whether it could just... go in UEFA Europa Conference League until it's big enough. And the thing is, not only could it, it mostly does- about 2.5 of the four tables are actually in the main article already. I'm not going to take any action for now, and I might feel better about it in a month when the next final happens, but I don't know if Giants has a different opinion. --PresN 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered the thought that additional tables that break down the smaller table in different ways could contribute. The main article actually has more information than what's included in the list, with the only thing missing being the list of finals. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink all instances of UEFA, ESPN, RSSSF, The Guardian, BBC Sport in the references.
• Add archive links for Refs. 2, 9 and 10.

I don't have qualms about the length of the list, but I'd wait until information about this year's final can be added before promoting. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, and I've nominated a lot of lists, you don't need to wikilink publishers in the refs as long as you're consistent. Happy to be informed otherwise by one of the delegates. I've added the archive links to the refs mentioned above. Thanks for your comments @Sgubaldo:. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we've got the third year in here now. Ehhhh... I'm still hesitant, but this is going to get longer and matches how we handle other similar leagues, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first featured list candidate! This is an extremely niche topic; the Chatham Islands are a tiny New Zealand island chain far to the east of the main islands, most notable for their bloody 19th century history. Most of these structures are so obscure that their New Zealand Heritage List entries are their only online presence, and a lot of them don't even have their full reports available! The obscurity notwithstanding, I hope this is a well-composed list. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a more thorough review afterwards, but for now, I wanted to point out that your table needs to be accessible, which includes column and scope rows. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 1 – Change website from Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, to reflect the name of the article
  • Done. -G
• Refs 3 and 4 – Where do you get the date of 2023 from?
  • For 4: Copyright date of the website, although I realize that doesn't necessarily match the content. 3 was accidental; I removed the dates on these. - G
• Ref 7 – Remove website, publisher is enough.
  • Makes sense, done. - G
• Bibliography item 1 – Shows a publish date of 2010-10-30 but the item only says 2010 for the date
  • Fixed. - G
• Add archive links with IABot
• Is there any reason you didn't make this table sortable? I understand the notes section wouldn't be useful for sorting.
  • None in particular, I added sorting. - G
• I noticed Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places and Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places exist. For Category 2, it says, This category lists buildings, structures and other places which have been declared Category II under the New Zealand Historic Places Act 1993 - "...places of ‘historical or cultural heritage significance or value" – It might make sense to include a very brief mention that these classifications are a result of the Historic Places Act 1993.
• You got me to look into it, and this was actually repealed; the categorization system is set up by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Added!
• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Good idea, added. - G

That's what I've got for now. Good stuff, especially for your first FLC Generalissima! Ping me when my comment has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Addressed I think! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For greater context, I'd be tempted to pinch the opening sentences from the main article on the islands and add them at the start i.e. "The Chatham Islands (/ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm) (Moriori: Rēkohu, lit. 'Misty Sun'; Māori: Wharekauri) are an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean about 800 km (430 nmi) east of New Zealand's South Island. They are administered as part of New Zealand. The first inhabitants, the Moriori, suffered disease outbreaks......."
  • Added. - G
• "A statue of Tommy Solomon" - maybe add a brief clause explaining who he was
  • Added. - G
• "A two-story colonial house" - can I just confirm that that is the correct spelling in NZ English and not a typo? I only ask because here in the UK we spell it "storey"
  • Ooh, yep. I'm a Yank, my apologies. - G
• "Its' construction" - no reason for that apostrophe
  • Fixed. - G
• I would remove the line break in the description of Hunts Forge, to be consistent with all the other listings.
  • Fixed. - G
• That's all I got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good ideas all around! Implemented. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that just occurred to me.........what is the initial order of the entries in the table based on? It's not alphabetical or in date order of construction or registration. I might be missing something blindingly obvious but it seems completely random......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @ChrisTheDude: Ah yes! Fixed, put it by date of construction. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I fixed 3 sorting problems; two entries needed {{sort}} templates, and the Notes column generally isn't sorted, so I fixed that. (It was sorting with "a" first, then "an" then "the", which isn't helpful.)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric 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 sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Assuming any leftover problems from the reviews above are dealt with: Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Initial comment: The other articles in Category:Lists of historic places in New Zealand include a column for images. I'd recommend the same here. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With enough supports and both the image and source passed for List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s, I am now ready to tackle on the FLC for this list! If slow ballads aren't your thing, how about some "hot sauce" to spice up your life? Let me know in the comments about anything I missed prior to nominating it. Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is there a rule in place for when to do these lists per-decade instead of per-year? ChrisTheDude's songs lists are all per-year, but your album lists are per-decade, so I thought that was the divide, but I see in the navbox that the Regional Mexican Albums and Latin Rhythm Albums are also per-year. --PresN 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it depends on the number of items on the list. Like for example if I try doing this by year by year it would be very short list with maybe three albums at most. Erick (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC

• "were the only the other" to "were the only other".
• "Luis Enrique had two number one albums on the chart with Amor y Alegría (1988) and Mi Mundo (1989), the latter culminated the decade": It would read better if the sentence ended at "(1989)".
• ref 65's url is for the week of August 8, 1987, but its title is June 27 and it is shown in the row for June 27. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 Thanks for the quick review! I think I got everything you mentioned! Erick (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion on prose and table accessibility. My ref check was a random click and I've not done a full source review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "In June 1985, Billboard magazine established Tropical Albums (formerly designated as Tropical/Salsa Latin Albums)" - this doesn't really make sense, as it kinda states that the chart was established in 1985 but that prior to that it had been called something else, which it can't have been because it hadn't been established. I would suggest "initially called...." or "from 1985 until [whenever] called....."
• Lead image could be made larger
• "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was Innovations (1985) by El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico" - suggest changing this to "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico's Innovations (1985)" so that you don't say the act's name twice in immediate succession
• "El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico was also the musical act" - the word "musical" is redundant and can be removed, as all acts on the chart are by definition musical
• "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with three records to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart." => "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with more than two number ones on the Tropical Albums chart during the 1980s."
• "which spawned the single, "Ven, Devórame Otra Vez", and" - don't think those commas are needed
• "The latter culminated the decade" => "The latter was the final number one of the decade"
• Santiago image caption needs a comma after "era"
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! I got everything you mentioned. You ever think about doing #1 Albums for country/R&B albums as well? Erick (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Magiciandude: - I already worked all the country albums number 1 lists up to something approaching FL standard. Maybe I will nom some here one day :-) Oh, and support this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 5, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34 need archive URLs.
• Refs 9 and 88 have live URLs that are incorrectly marked as dead.
• Every ref in the table (13–131) should have the |url-access=subscription parameter added because the live URLs are only visible in full to Billboard Pro subscribers.
• Alt text in first image: "on a venue" reads weirdly to me, maybe "at" would work better?
• Alt text in Santiago image: from Santiago's point of view, the microphone is to his right, therefore he is holding the microphone in his right hand.
• Since the source for the Rodriguez image is a YouTube video, a timestamp should be added to either the source URL, the image description, or both.

Everything else looks good for the most part:

• A spot check of multiple sources verifies the information for which they are cited.
• All sources are reliable.
• No concerns with the alt text in the latter two images.
• All images have suitable captions.
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Except for the minor issue with the lede image, all images present in the listicle have suitable captions.
• Sourcing for each image (mostly) checks out.
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I'll get to work on this either Sunday or Monday. Erick (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good 😎👍 Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have completed everything you addressed by Monday. Let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erick: Unfortunately, it looks like IABot reversed the fixes made on the second and third bullets, though I'm pleased with the rest of the changes. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes the IABot did for now. Erick (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I did just add |url-status=live to a few URLs that were marked as dead, but that was the only minor issue left and I have no qualms with supporting now. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback on an older FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article over the last few days, and it follows the same structure as many other current FLs. My Interstellar nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction, Garfield's performance, as well as" => "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction and Garfield's performance, as well as"
• All the notes with the exception of A are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both done! Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the table, where there is a rowspan for a header cell, the scope should be "rowgroup". e.g. the rowspan for "AACTA Awards". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed. Also changed for the Interstellar list since it hadn't been brought up. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 4 – Add |location=Sydney to differentiate between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) at a glance
• Ref 22 – Missing date of December 11, 2016 (currently the access date uses this date as well, possibly mistakenly so)
• Ref 21 – Missing date of January 5, 2017
• Ref 26 – Missing date of January 10, 2017
• Ref 37 – Replace The Houston Chronicle with Houston Chronicle
• Ref 46 – Missing date of January 28, 2017
• Ref 47 – Missing date of February 2, 2017
• Ref 52 – Missing date of February 11, 2017

That's what I've got. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh. Thank you for catching those, I'm surprised I missed that many. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The two lead images have free licensing and alt text, along with an appropriate caption. No issues in this respect. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article comes as part of a series on Centre College's presidents that I have been working on for over two years now. After getting a handful of the biography articles to FA, I wanted to go ahead and try to get the list to featured as well - much of the format of this article was inspired by List of presidents of Georgetown University, also an FL. I hope that I have provided an adequate amount of detail on the office's history and the men who have occupied it. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's something really weird going on with the "name" column. If I sort on that column, the order I get begins Adams > Beatty > Moreland > Morrill > Blackburn. It seems completely random.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Really weird indeed. I think the "Rev." prefixes were messing with {{sortname}} so I've taken the latter out and defined the sorting stuff myself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Both Youngs, who were father and son, in addition to McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts, are the five Centre presidents to have died in office" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would change it to "Five Centre presidents have died in office: both Youngs, who were father and son, McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts."
• Note a isn't a sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! Both done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCN02WPS, this is my first FLC contribution, so excuse me if I make a few mistakes.

• In the third paragraph, "John C. Young" should be changed to "Young" since he's already been introduced.
• With the three pictures next to the take, do we need to link their articles? They've already been linked at least twice within the article.
• That's all!  750h+ | Talk  12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @750h+: thanks for taking a look. I removed the links in the captions but I'd prefer to leave Young's full name since there was another Young (his son, in fact) and in the previous sentence they are mentioned together as "both Youngs", leaving "Young" open to ambiguity at that point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support.  750h+ | Talk  12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a page number for File:Hillcrest House, Centre College, 1927.png
• Recommend replacing the Craik House image with Craik House, Centre College, West Main Street, Danville, KY - 51985279388.jpg, as it shows more of the building. Maybe one day we can get an unobstructed view.
• File:Centre_College_Kentucky.jpg doesn't have alt text
• px not used.

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Added alt text and replaced the Craik House image as recommended - I have considered taking a picture myself but those pesky trees make quite the obstacle. As for the last comment, I was under the impression that fixed px sizes weren't good to use on images, but perhaps I am wrong. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sorry for the confusion about the px: you are correct, px is not recommended (and we should use upright instead). I was just noting for the coordinators that I checked for this and found no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this needs a source review. I'll happily provide one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 1 Good
• Ref 7 Good
• Ref 12 Good
• Ref 14 Good
• Ref 20 Good
• Ref 25 Good
• Ref 30 Good
• Ref 46 Good
• Ref 52 Good
• Ref 55 Good
• Ref 62 Good

• Pelican Publishing Company should be linked
• Most of the books seem reliable. However I cant find anything on Genealogical Publishing Company.
• Is Presbyterian Encyclopædia Publishing Company the same as Presbyterian Publishing Corporation if so should be linked.
• Is New York: Charles Scribner & Co the same as Charles Scribner's Sons, if so should be linked.

• • Ping me when ready. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for taking a look! I'm happy to replace the Genealogical Publishing Company source if you'd recommend it, here's their website and here's one that tells a little about them. I'm only using that source for the fact that William C. Young was PCUSA moderator, so that can be switched if need be. I don't think the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation is the same entity, at least from what I can tell, but the other two links have been added as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm unconvinced on Genalogical, I recommend replacing it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @OlifanofmrTennant switched it out, does that look better? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Support Yes Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 27 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another biographical list for me: Maurice Linford Gwyer to D. Y. Chandrachud. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility and added references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "However this convention has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges. Also, in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna." - I'd suggest revising this to "This convention has been broken twice: in 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges and in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna."
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for the "bar" heading? What this means is probably obscure to many people
• "Appointed by" columns don't sort correctly
• Footnote a isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Do you feel that the "Date appointed as judge" in the second table is an important enough column? Removing it would lead to both tables having the same columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't mind either way. Looking at it, though, I notice that Harilal Jekisundas Kania was apparently appointed as a judge and Chief Justice on the same day, and had apparently served as Chief Justices of the Federal Court of India for over two years before becoming a judge - is this correct? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That cell shows the date on which they were appointed as Supreme Court judges. Most of them were judges in lower courts before that date. This obviously looks weird for the first Chief justice, as he was also the Chief justice of the preceding court. In any case, I've removed the column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Forgot to ping in my earlier reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, two more things I missed earlier: the "acting" entry in the first column of the first table doesn't sort correctly, and in both tables the image column should not be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: No need to apologize: I seemed to have missed a lot of things in this list. I've fixed the additional two issues that you've pointed out. If you find more issues, please feel free to point them out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many images use the source link to the current list, but it should link to the former list. Please update these in the images.
• Almost all of the images need to be reviewed to ensure that they meet the GODL-India licence. If you are not the uploader of the images you can look at them and mark them as reviewed.
• Per MOS:ALT, alt text should be added to the images.

Comments posted above. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've added the alt texts to all the images and fixed the source url in the images that seem to be from the page showing former chief justices. I don't have the relevant permissions on commons to review image licenses. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been resolved. I can support based on the image review. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Ref 4 – Change "Indian Express" to "The Indian Express", based on The Indian Express being the target
• Ref 4 – Link is subscription based, please note this
• Ref 5 – Change "Times of India" to "The Times of India", based on The Times of India being the target
• Ref 6 – Authors missing
• Ref 7 – Add wikilink to The Hindu
• Ref 8 – Missing a publisher
• Refs 32, 32, 50, 51, 56, 57 – No access date and not archived
• Ref 58 – Wikilink The Times of India
• The note under the table, change "Acting" to "acting"

That's what I've got. Please ping me once you've made changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I've replaced ref 4 with one that doesn't require a subscription, and ref 8 with a better one. Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Version reviewed
• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Ref 8 is not linked. Seems to be the same source as Ref 10.
• Spotchecks on 15 sources OK. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: I've replaced ref 8 with a different one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 27 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my third nomination from the history of Billboard's chart for the gentler side of popular music. How gentle? Well in this year an actual NUN reached number one! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 12 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing except a suggestion to consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case there's any references changed in the future and the person isn't as careful about date formatting as you are. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, I have added that template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I have to complain about something. "by Belgian vocalist the Singing Nun, who" doesn't work for me; how about this? "by the Singing Nun, a Belgian vocalist who". - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Prose: see above. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric 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 sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 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) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - thanks for your review, I have tweaked the bit about the Singing Nun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I just saw the PD notice in the image ... now I have no problem with it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dank: - I changed it for a different image anyway.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• with the only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing. -- I think "the" here should be dropped.
  • Not sure which "the" you mean, but removing either would make the sentence grammatically incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ChrisTheDude: My bad should have been specific. I meant to say if it should state as with only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing or some tweaking like with only one of their songs appearing on the listing. Hopefully the makes sense. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • @Pseud 14: Neither of those would work, as that wording would indicate that they had several songs on the listing but only one got to number one, which is not the point being made. The point being made is that the song in question was literally the only one they ever had on the chart. The wording has to stay as it is, otherwise the sentence becomes incorrect...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fair point. Nothing further then. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The End of the World" should sort with "E"
• That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• The Peter, Paul and Mary image uses px size, switch to "upright"
• Images have alt text.
• Images are appropriately tagged and licensed as PD.
• Images have succinct captions and relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - fixed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow missing the table caption. --PresN 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: - hard to believe that after all this time I can still forget that!  :-P Added now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article that I created to be of high quality and I would like to nominate it for FL. It is quite simple, but I believe it explains the topic well inline with contemporary lists. TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• No list should start with "This is a list of". It might be better if the current second paragraph is moved to the top.
• "Elections in Liechtenstein have been held since the ratification of the 1862 constitution in with the Landtag was of Liechtenstein was established for the first time." Needs grammar fixes to be intelligible.
• I don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
• You can consider using the Template:Party name with color template for the political party cell in the table. The other columns don't need the color.
• Is the monarch column very relevant to this table? Same for the date column.
• Only slightly relevant to this FLC, but please create a stub atleast for Karl Freiherr Haus von Hausen.
• Is the phrase "(during term)" in the PM column necessary?
• The notes for the graph should be in its caption.
• "First election to use 25 Landtag seats instead of 15." to "First election to have 25 Landtag seats instead of 15."
• Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. 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.
• The last three are PresN's standard comments. That's all I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright I believe I have (at least started to) addressed this issue pointed out. As you have pointed out with the monarch and date it may not be necessary, though I would be a proponent of keeping the date(s) as I believe it's better structures the table given that some elections have taken place in the same year. That being said, I have replaced the monarch column with a reference one instead as recommended by @RunningTiger123, these are the sources from the main election article. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still need colscopes. --PresN 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Take another look. TheBritinator (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The elections in the same years are disambiguated by month names in the election column already.
  • I still don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
  • Please see my earlier comment about using Party name with color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Design choice by myself. The idea is to show the ruling party at the time of the election. Could be removed, though. TheBritinator (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MPGuy2824 I wanted to use party name with color, but I'm not entirely sure how it works nor if it really fits with the design choice I have made with the table. I would swap it if I could. TheBritinator (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The color of the previous winning party bleeding into the next election's row was quite confusing. It's good that you removed it.
    • If you want to see the template that I suggested in action look at Sangha Assembly constituency#Members of the Legislative Assembly. With the colors that you are stuck with, MOS:CONTRAST is an issue (as pointed out below by RunningTiger123).
    • Additionally, consider centering the references column to see if you like the look better. Not a showstopper though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Centred. I have taken another look and I'm still unsure about the template, when I try to use it it appears to bleed the colour and party name as a new column, not sure how I am supposed to produce the result on the article you referenced. Thanks TheBritinator (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Alright, I see you have done that yourself, thanks. Is there anything else? TheBritinator (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry, I was off-wiki for a few days. Please ping reviewers when you respond, as few FL reviewers watchlist a review page where they aren't the nominator. A few more nitpicks:

      1. Lately I've seen reviewers ask that numbers in table be right-aligned. This is specifically related to the "seat majority" column. It isn't as important for the "winning vote share" column, but you could do it anyway for consistency.
      2. "Political parties did not exist in Liechtenstein until 1918 and before the ratification of the 1921 constitution the head of government was not elected but rather appointed by the prince of Liechtenstein, thus elections were only held to elect members of the Landtag." is quite a complicated sentence. Consider splitting it.
      3. Not a deal breaker, but you could just say "Prime Minister" instead of "Elected prime minister" in the table header.
      4. Regarding your "This is a list of " problem (mentioned in another reviewer's section below). You could remove the sentence completely and mention the fact that "the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein then elect the prime minister of Liechtenstein" elsewhere in the lead. If you aren't able to find more content for the (now shortened) second paragraph, then merge the remaining sentence with the first paragraph. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @MPGuy2824 Done. I also merged some cells. TheBritinator (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Support promotion. There is now no need for the party key, since the colors are right next to the party abbreviations. I suggest that you remove it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. TheBritinator (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Agree with all of the above comments
• "elections for the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein and Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" – but the PM isn't directly elected, right? The elections only select the Landtag representatives; those representatives then elect the PM.
  • Same idea for "Elected prime minister (during term)" in column header – just say "Prime minister"
• No need for empty lines in the "Political parties" section (just leads to unnecessary gaps)
• Don't add bold text in markup for table headers (MediaWiki adds bold text automatically)
• Images need alt text
• I'm having a hard time checking because the colors include an alpha value, but I don't think the background cell colors meet MOS:COLOR. There must be a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between the text and background colors.
• "30 September 1914 – 2 October 1914" – no need to state year twice
• Perhaps the most critical part – what's your source for any of the election results???
  • File:Liechtenstein elections graph.png should also explain what its sources are

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining items I see:

• Missing comma after "(green)" in image caption
• Image description page still lacks sources
• A key for the party abbreviations would help – I wouldn't mind if you put it in the image caption, e.g., Progressive Citizens' Party (FBP, blue)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 Done. Looks good to you? TheBritinator (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBritinator There are some unaddressed comments here for over a month; do you intend to respond to them? MPGuy2824 Do you intend to return to your review to close it out? --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May you please be more specific on what comments need to be adressed? TheBritinator (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "was established for the first time" → reads as redundant to me
• "and before the ratification 1921 constitution" → missing word
• "the reigning prince of Liechtenstein" → is "reigning" necessary
• Recommend breaking up the second sentence of the first paragraph, it's a little long
• "This is a list of Liechtenstein" → I'm not a huge fan of this composition ("This is a list of...") - I think it would be better to take what's in parentheses and make that the focal point of the sentence/paragraph
• "elect the Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" → remove caps from PM
• "before in 1988 a successful referendum was held" → ungrammatical
• "increased the seats to 25" → perhaps "increased the number of seats to 25"?
• Is "(1862–present)" necessary in the subsection title
• Recommend using {{sfn}} so that the Nohlen/Stover reference is not duplicated five times

That's what I've got. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TheBritinator (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points on second read-through:

• Landtag is linked in both the first and second paragraphs
• "...of Liechtenstein" gets a little repetitive in the second paragraph, could shorten to "...the prime minister)", for example
• Still not a huge fan of "This is a list of..." - this format (while not the first sentence) is explicitly discouraged by MOS:THISISALIST
• "before in 1988 a referendum was held" → still not grammatical (maybe "before a 1988 referendum that increased...")
• Vogt 1987 shows up in the references and bibliography - guessing that is because his full name is entered as just his last name. Recommend using |author-link= to add a link to his page
• Notes 1 and 3 aren't complete sentences and therefore do not require full stops

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What would you recommend instead of "This is a list of..."? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for RunningTiger123 and PCN02WPS. --PresN 13:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, been off-wiki for a bit. Here's what I've got on third read-through:

• "Political parties did not exist in Liechtenstein until 1918" → if the first one was established in 1918, might be helpful to mention it here
• "Before the ratification of the 1921 constitution the head of government" → comma after "constitution" would be good
• "Under the 1921 constitution general elections are held" → ditto for "constitution" here
• "who then elect the prime minister of Liechtenstein" → I still think "of Liechtenstein" is unneeded here; it's abundantly clear what country we're talking about so I don't think "the prime minister" is ambiguous
• "The initial number of seats of the Landtag was set at 15" → I think this would sound better if it were simplified (e.g. "The Landtag had 15 seats until..."), since the referendum didn't change the initial amount of seats, just the current number at that time.
• Issue with Vogt citation still remains

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS Done. Looks good to you? TheBritinator (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still one comma missing (the third bullet point in the last list) but I won't hold it up only for that. Happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list is nomination #10 for me in the series and, hopefully, will end up being #30 in the series to be promoted. Only two more nominations after this one and the 32-team series of first-round draft picks will be complete! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk)

• Don Meredith, a quarterback out of SMU - Perhaps expand the name of the college in full and then bracket it.
• That's all I could find. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed. AGF on self-published images.
• Images used are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the review and helpful feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes:

• Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen.
• Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
• Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong.
• Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row.
• Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [10]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article.
• Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious.

Other prose:

• "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links.
• Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC).
• Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again.

Sources:

• Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor.
• Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there).
• Source 23 is OK. Since it covers most of the table, I checked some entries at random, found no issues.
• Verified Source 25.
• Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68".
• Source 53, 54, 66, 70 are OK and factually verified. 66 is representative of a slew of similar ones.
• Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48.
• Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table.
• Source 30 is OK. Thank you for archiving it!
• Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce.
• Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea.

Table:

• Space before dagger: I think the dagger symbol should be separated from player names by a space to improve readability. Most milhist articles do this in their infoboxes. A counterargument might be that the asterisk doesn't need a space before it, and putting a space before one symbol and not the other might make it inconsistent. Maybe add spaces before both symbols?
• Double dagger in key is unused: the ‡ is in the table key but is never used. I'm pretty sure it should be next to Buck Buchanan's name in the table.

Toadspike (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a break, I think this is enough for tonight. I think I'm about halfway through, I'll come back and finish up tomorrow. Toadspike (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I've completed my source review, please ping me once you've addressed all my concerns (or once you've explained why they're silly), or if you have questions. My largest lasting concern is making sure that the traded picks in the "Notes" column are listed next to the correct players. Reading my comments above, I found three such errors in the footnotes. You may want to check the few I haven't, especially the older ones not cited to Pro Football Reference (1993 and earlier). Toadspike (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes:

• Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen. – Fixed.
• Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE. – Fixed, noted for future reference.
• Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong. – Blech. These situations come up way more often than I like where teams credit the wrong pick of a round. I've replaced that reference with one that does not explicitly call out that the pick turned out to be Mo Moorman.
• Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row. – Fixed.
• Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [11]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article. – Unfortunately, publications of the past had a tendency to focus and value only the first, and sometimes second, round selections, so I often see relevant but smaller details left out of RS. That's a big part of what's made some of these lists difficult. My understand is the the NFL page actually is not citing the Associated Press, but instead giving them credit for the image. Never the less, I agree the NYT's exclusion is an issue, and I've replaced that source.
• Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious. – I'm glad you found it amusing! I felt it the best way to consistently point towards the relevant trades when necessary.

Other prose:

• "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links. – Reworded to "The Chiefs joined the NFL prior to the 1970 season as a result of the AFL–NFL merger."
• Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC). – Hm. It just occurred to me, Common draft is not entirely accurate... The "common draft era" refers to anything from the 1967 onwards and is more of an informal name for "NFL draft" now. I've brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#"Common_draft_era". I won't bombard you with the sources that state this here, but this misunderstanding seems mostly related to the state of common draft as opposed to the text that the lead has written. Any thoughts on this with the clarification?
• Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again. – I think the pivot from "did not draft" to "four of the team's first-round picks" isn't bad, but I'm open to suggestions. I think/hope the table speaks for itself in that aspect. I think it'd be difficult to summarize the reasons for this in the lead and that trying to do so would bloat it in a way that would make the article worse. Again though, I'm open to suggestions. Good catch on Sayers, second mention is now just "Sayers". I'd prefer to keep the unlinked full name for Buck Buchanan in the second paragraph, I think it's contextually an improvement over just listing the last name in this case.

Sources:

• Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor. – The standard, for whatever reason, is to cite Sports Illustrated as a magazine. If I swap it to anything else then Citation Bot would eventually switch it back. See here where it changed it to magazine (as it has across all my featured list nominations). With that said, you did make me realize/become aware of CNN/SI, which I've now changed the publisher to. Fun note, that wasn't automatically changed to magazine by Citation Bot, so that's neat.
• Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there). – I think it's a matter of familiarity with the sources. I do agree that, on first look, it can be difficult for people unfamiliar with the site to grasp it, but it does verify it.
• Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68". – I feel mixed about this. The page title is just two digits, and I don't really love to editorialize titles to the subtitles.
• Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48. – Addressed above.
• Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table. – Source 28 does say he was drafted by both teams, to the same degree that 26 does, but unfortunately it's one of those things tucked away in a tab lower down in the page. I did however just find a better source that I've since added which is more explicit in stating this fact.
• Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce. – Thank you! This feels like how I had to do way too many trades! I wish more sources explicitly stated the pick numbers (and were correct when doing so). Thank goodness for "from Kansas City" lol.
• Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea. – Yeah, I try to avoid editorializing titles whenever possible.

Really there was only one instance where the note was in the wrong place, which I'm quite grateful you caught. Thank you very much for the thorough review, I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes:  Resolved

Other prose:

• Adjacent links  Resolved
• Common draft: Thanks for the explanation. My revised suggestion adding the word 'began':

As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft".

This small change should make the situation clear enough and technically correct.

• Last lead paragraph: I now agree that more prose isn't needed here. Sayers' name has been corrected.  Resolved

Sources:

• Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter.
• Otherwise  Resolved

Table:

• Have you had a chance to look at this section yet? There is one minor formatting change (really up to you whether you choose to add a space or not), and the wrong symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name (should be ‡, not †).

Incorrect note: I goofed in summarizing my own comments, this is now  Resolved

Toadspike (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Toadspike, I actually missed the table when I copy and pasted your feedback. I've fixed the symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name, that was definitely an error to use † instead of ‡. As for the spacing, I've personally always felt that the symbol right next to the name was preferable over the space, though I understand it's a preference kind of thing. It's something I'll mull over and maybe come back and do in the future, but for the time being, I don't think it's an improvement.

• As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft". – I've made this change and applied it across all of the lists I've worked on for first-round picks.
• Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter. – I don't looove it, but I get it. I went ahead and changed it.

I hope that I've now addressed everything @Toadspike. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you for the very quick response. All of my concerns have been addressed, source review passed. I support this FLC. Toadspike (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I belive that it meets the FL criteria. I created the forked off of the aritcle Peter Capaldi. The table was all ready sourced I replaced bad sources, cut non-notable inclusions and constructed the lead. This is part of a FT that I wish to complete. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. Done
• 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.Done
• One cell of every row (the primary cell) should be a header cell. In this case it would be the Award cell.
• 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. | AwardName becomes !scope=row | AwardName (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• Additionally, you have two typos in the lead section: "appearnces" and "trough".Done-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so I'm trying to implement the fourth thing you mentioned but it's not properly working, any idea how to fix it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at fixing it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've solved it. Thanks, I think thats everything adressed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a stray "1" under the image caption for some reason Done
• "From 1993 through 1995" - as Capaldi is British then British English should be used and in the UK we do not say "from [date] through [date]". Change this to "Between 1993 and 1995" Done
• " Capaldi won a GQ Man of the Year Award for "TV personality of the Year" award" - repetition of "award" doesn't read brilliantly Done
• BAFTA Scotland is linked twice in the lead, also the capitalisation is different each time Done
• Something seems to have gone awry with the scopes of many of the entries, as the first column is centrally aligned and in bold.

  Confused as what to do here. Isnt it meant to be like that given that its the primary cell?

  At the point when I typed that, about a third of the cells in the column were centre-aligned and bolded and the rest were not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also two rows where the columns seem to be erroneously shifted to the left Done
• Works which start with "the" should sort based on the next word in the title Done
• Note a needs a full stop Done
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I belive I have addressed everything you've mentioned. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Two entries in the table include "AudioFile Earphones Award" as the award while a third uses "Awards" – Please make these consistent Done
• Should it be "Atlantic Film Festival Award" or "Atlantic International Film Festival" – the target for this entry is Atlantic International Film Festival Done
• The entries for Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life appear to be backwards, listing that under the category column instead of the work column, with the appropriate categories listed in the work column
• RTS Scotland links to Royal Television Society, still worth linking to the redirect in the table in my opinion in case it ever gets turned into its own article Done
• Some of the references include links to BAFTA as the publisher. I think, considering the target when those are clicked on, these should include British Academy of Film and Television Arts as the publisher instead of the acronym. Done
• Ref 14, 31, and 41 – Wikilink Royal Television Society Done
• Ref 2 – Wikilink The Hollywood Reporter Done
• Ref 3, 4, and 5 – All use The Herald as the publisher, but ref 3 does not include a wikilink Done'
• Refs 6, 23 – Please down case this to title case instead of all caps Done
• Ref 18 – Use "TheWrap" instead of "The Wrap" Done
• Refs 21, 25, and 27 – Wikilink Awards Daily Done
• Ref 26 – Wikilink IndieWire Done
• Ref 29 – Use and wikilink to Chlotrudis Society for Independent Films instead of Chlotrudis Done
• Refs 15, 35 - Dead link (redirects to site's main page) Done
• Refs 4, 5, 16, 17, 22, 46 – These links are redirected once you access them, please bypass the redirects Done
• It looks like 8 of the links do not have archive links, please fix this if you can Done
• Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use dmy dates}} template to the top of the article under the short description Done

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - just to chime in.....it would actually be {{Use dmy dates}} because we do things differently in the UK :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, good catch, thanks for that Chris! I've fixed my comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing information for the images (there are a lot of them) will be up shortly on the list talk page. The point of the list is so that people can enjoy learning some basic information about some trees that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that Canada doesn't have a monopoly on forest inventories ... so if someone wants to propose and defend alternative inventories, I have no problem with that. I'd prefer to keep the current page title, but as a fall-back position, if necessary, the page could have a title that focuses only on Canada's national forest inventory of native trees. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very excited to see a new plant list! Unfortunately, Dank, the trees are so pretty but that header is physically painful to look at. :( Most of the Notes column is empty space on my screen because the double images stretch the rows vertically; even just changing the notes column down to 15% and column 3 up to 7% (and dropping/shuffling some linebreaks) makes it much easier to read. If you don't want to do that, maybe find a way to shorten column 3 and 5's headers and stick more detail in footnotes?

Did that; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• The row headers need to start with !, not |, so !scope="row"
• The genera table is missing rowscopes altogether.

--PresN 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done these last two I think, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better, thank you! --PresN 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, you don't seem to use the serial comma (ie can be fashioned into posts, poles and railroad ties and used for plywood, wood veneer and construction framing), however, in the table an instance of summer months include ruby-crowned kinglets, ovenbirds, and Setophaga warblers. -- maybe worth dropping the latter for consistency.
• That's all I could nitpick really. This is a well-structured, informative and FL-worthy list as one would expect from you work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Very kind, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Pinus banksiana tree.jpg: The source link didn't work so I replaced it with another link.
• File:Pinus monticola opencones.jpg: Source link was broken so I added an archived link
• File:PonderosaPinebarkidaho.JPG: Source link is broken but there is a notice that the copyright was released so I don't think its necessary
• File:Thuja occidentalis trunk.jpg: replaced a broken link
• File:Tsuga canadensis morton.jpg: added archived link
• I fixed licence link concerns above, no other concerns with licencing.
• All images have alt text.
• File:Red Creek Fir.jpg: since this image is at the top of the page and not part of a row, I recommend that this alt text be a little more descriptive than "landscape".
• No px problems, since most images are used in a template

Since there is only one minor concern with alt text, I can support this nomination based on the image review. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, thx. I used "trunk of a large tree in the forest" for the alt text. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Chris ... been trying to review your stuff but I never get there in time! I'll try to review the next one early. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting are both up to scratch, as expected. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my nomination for List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1961, here's the list for the following year. The chart changed its name during 1962 and it seemed most appropriate to use the name under which it ended the year as the article title. An editor on the talk page suggested it should in fact be the name under which it spent the greater portion of the year, but then never really followed up on that. If anyone else agrees, let me know...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "of an appropriate style and ranking them according to their placings": Add a comma after "style". Also, consider replacing "placings" with "positions".
• Add a wikilink for "early 1960s UK jazz revival", if there is something appropriate.
• The table is missing its caption.

That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 13 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Literally couldn't find anything to critique, so you beat me there this time. Though I do recommend adding the {{Use mdy dates}} template to the article in case any references are added in the future. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hey man im josh: - done! Thanks for your support! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "I Can't Stop Loving You" and "You Don't Know Me" spent a total of eight weeks in the top spot, the most for any artist. "I Can't Stop Loving You" also reached number one on the Hot 100 -- perhaps to avoid repetition, it could be written as the most for any artist; the former single also reached number one on the Hot 100...
• That's all I could find prose-wise. Great work as usual! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
• Images have succinct captions. For conciseness though, suggest minor caption edit: both from his album Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music.
• Images are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 20 May 2024 (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) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): ZooBlazer and Rhain ☔ (he/him)

The Last of Us was the first live action video game adaptation to receive major awards consideration, and with most of the nominations resolved (for now), I figured it would be a good time for a FLC nomination to make sure the article would be ready for TFL when season 2 debuts next year. -- ZooBlazer 00:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "escorting immune teenager" - if it's relevant to the plot (I don't know, I've never seen it) that Ellie is "immune" then you should probably say what she is immune to

  Done

• Woodard is shown in different places in the table as Keivonn Woodard and Keivonn Montreal Woodard

  I'll wait and see what Rhain wants to do about the situation. I'm not sure if it's best to go off what he was nominated as or if we just go off his credited name.

  @Rhain: What do you want to do about how we write out Woodard's name in the table? -- ZooBlazer 00:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The table follows whatever name he is nominated under, but I'd be happy to use his full name every time for consistency if that's preferred. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it, I think. Awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Responded to both points. Thanks for the comments! -- ZooBlazer 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I guess the name thing isn't a big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first season, based on the 2013 game, follows Joel (Pedro Pascal) -- I would link the first instance of "first season" and then "second season".
• That's all I could find. Great work on this list. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thanks for the comments and IR! I linked the seasons as you suggested. -- ZooBlazer 19:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't hide links to specific ceremonies as the overall award (for instance, "Screen Actors Guild Awards" shouldn't link to 30th Screen Actors Guild Awards)
  • In general, I'd link to the overall award (e.g., Screen Actors Guild Awards) except when referring to specific accomplishments (e.g., "a leading eight wins at the 75th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards"). This should make it easier to update if it is further recognized at those awards in the future.
• What is the default order for listing awards? It looks like you've placed the categories it won at the top instead of just listing them alphabetically or by "importance" (admittedly a nebulous concept). If it wins different awards in a later season the orders will change, which would be confusing.
  • Example: Under the SAG Awards, it's more typical to list Male Actor and Female Actor together and Stunt Ensemble further down. (See List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones as one example.)
• If The Last of Us: Inside the Episode is included at the PGA Awards, also add its Emmy nom
  • Creative Arts dates should be updated to January 6–7, 2024 accordingly
• Remove episode submissions for lead acting at the Emmys (not listed with the official nominations like other categories)
• I appreciate the "Multiple awards and nominations", but it's a lot of work to keep it updated correctly. I didn't check the crew table but the episode table has incorrect totals right now. I'm not saying they have to go – if you're willing to check everything to get it right that's fine by me!

In fairness, this is all really nitpicky – I just think it's worth getting it really polished now to set a good precedent if further awards are added for later seasons. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments—"nitpicky" is my middle name, so I appreciate it. You're right that the categories are generally ordered by winners, then by "importance"; I think this would be fine to continue with future seasons, but if you're opposed then it can be adjusted. I disagree with removing leading episode submissions; it's pertinent (and sourced) information, and is done elsewhere too, but let me know if you feel strongly otherwise. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sorting should be redone to help with WP:FLCR #4 – while there is a structure to it, it's not something readers may be used to. I'm personally not a fan of the episode submissions, but since they are sourced here they can stay. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think sorting by winners first has an easier and more logical structure per the criteria, but I understand your point (especially regarding future seasons), so I've restructured accordingly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different item, how are you getting the totals for the episode summary table? For instance, when I search for "When You're Lost in the Darkness", I get 5 hits in the table, but it says there are 7 nominations. Maybe you're counting guest acting roles that don't specify episodes, which... I'm personally a bit skeptical on, but I wanted to confirm that's what you're doing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. You're right about guest acting nominations; in the case of the first episode, it's Nico Parker, who only starred in that episode. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Source reliability looks okay throughout. There is one formatting issue to address: refs 38, 45, 55 and 70 have all caps in their titles that should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008 Fixed all four instances. -- ZooBlazer 21:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 20 May 2024 (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) 12:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC! I thought Connecticut needed more featured lists :). This is a list of all the senators and representatives to Congress from Connecticut since it became a US state in 1788. The list is modeled after another similar featured list, United States congressional delegations from Hawaii. Please let me know any feedback you might have; thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments

• "Current U.S. representatives from Connecticut" should be a table caption and not a header. Same with the senator table.
• Wikilink the first usage of "dean".
• 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same goes for row header cells, where the scope=row or rowgroup needs to be used.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• In the "United States Senate" table, what does the gray/white 3rd column (after the one showing the party color) signify?
• Also, what does the "(PA)" next to Oliver Ellsworth's name stand for? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Hi! Thanks for your feedback!

  • Headers converted to table captions - done!
  • There isn't a good wikilink I can include for "dean", but I've added a clarification as to what it means, and included a wikilink to the similar page Dean of the United States House of Representatives - done, but might want clarification.
  • It took me a bit but I think I added scopes to all the tables (although I may have missed something or messed up somewhere - is there a way to check?) - done for now.
  • The gray/white 3rd column signifies the term that senator was serving (every six years). Made me realize I need to add footnotes for a lot more senators, so that's on my to-do list. How should I make the meaning of the gray/white bars clear?
  • "(PA)" should mean Pro-Administration, legend is now fixed to represent that - done!

  Thanks again for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tables in the "United States House of Representatives" section still need table captions.
  • The colors in the "United States Senate" are still weird. e.g. looking at "Oliver Ellsworth (PA)". The color next to him is a green that isn't present in the legend above, and doesn't match the color for Pro-Administration, which is white.
  • What does (F) in "James Hillhouse (F)" stand for? Maybe you meant FS for Free Soil, but the color doesn't match.
  • Also, it should be !scope="col", not ! !scope="col" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MPGuy2824 Hi, I believe I've fixed all the issues addressed in your last comment. Thanks for bearing with me - let me know if there's other issues that need fixing. In particular, here were the fixes applied:

    • Table captions added to "United States House of Representatives" section
    • All colors of senators should now be represented accurately in the legend.
    • (F) should stand for "Federalist Party" - missed including that in the legend.
    • Fixed that scope issue.

    Thanks again, and have a great rest of your day. Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. P.S. With the table class setting that you have, anything in a header cell doesn't need to be explicitly bolded. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

Support! I also have an FLC about a state beginning with the letter C! So I figured I'd come here and review this one, especially since I enjoy politics. I compared the list to the three existing featured lists for state congressional delegations - Hawaii, Indiana, and Utah.

• Is there an image for the top-right of the page? All of the other featured lists have that.
• Somewhere you need to link U.S. state. Some people might never have heard of Connecticut, or believe it's even a real place. Context is important, and in general, I feel that the lead is far too short, compared to Indiana and Utah especially. The Utah list mentions, for example,

• "Before the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the Utah State Legislature. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, one from each of Utah's four congressional districts."

• Was that similar for Connecticut? Also, how many have there been? Utah's list also includes a total number, which is a useful bit of information you'd expect in a featured list, such as people who were both a representative and senator, the longest-serving member, a gender breakdown, the current dean of the state. That information should be in the lead. That's important for how Wikipedia's information is shown. On mobile, for example, you would see the lead, and then have to open up tabs to read more information.
• I don't know if it's overkill, but considering the number of times that PVI is brought up, could you explain somewhere what that means, not just linking it in the first infobox for current U.S. senators?
• "Connecticut has not had a Republican representative in Congress for more than a decade" - which begs me to ask, who was the last Republican? I think it's worth mentioning in the spirit of neutrality both in respect for party affiliation and historical context.
• Just some general spotchecking, but could you tell me what is the reference for the historical list of senators? For example, that James Hillhouse was after Ellsworth.
• There's nothing about how the representatives are voted for. Again, referring to Utah's list, there should be something like - "Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years by popular vote within a congressional district... Connecticut has had five districts since 2003."

So that's it. I don't think any of the above should be that difficult, it's mostly me being nitpicky with what I expect out of a featured list. Please let met know if you have any comments, Staraction (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink Hi! Thanks for your feedback!

• The image was included originally later on in the article, but I've moved it to the top right as suggested - done!
• Wikilinked U.S. State in lead and expanded it - done!
• Count included in lead - done!
• I've included a new description about what CPVI is - done!
• I originally included that information in a caption with Chris Shays' image, but I've included that in the body of the article too now - done!
• [17] is the source, which is now included in a caption - done!
• Included under United States House of Representatives - done!

Thanks again for your feedback, and best of luck on your own FLC! I did not even realize that Indiana and Utah had FLs for their congressional delegations - that will be super helpful to me in the future! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses, that works great! Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment," - say when this was
• "Each state elects varying members of the House" => "Each state elects varying numbers of members of the House"
• "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, having served in the House since 1991" => "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, who has served in the House since 1991" (in both body and lead)
• "when Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district" => "since Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district"
• "Connecticut's senators are elected in classes II and III" - what does this mean? Also, does this not conflict with the previous section, which said that Chris Murphy is a Class I senator?
• Something seems amiss with the scope for the 50th Congress row -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Hi, it should all be fixed. Thanks for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Richard Blumenthal Official Portrait (cropped).jpg: source link is a broken link, but I'm willing to AGF that this is still an image taken of a US employee for their official duties.
• File:Oliver Ellsworth.jpg: This image is lacking source info, author info, and a PD-US tag. Unless this information is added, this should not be used in the article.
• File:WalterBooth.jpg: same as above.
• File:Clare boothe.jpg: needs a US-PD tag
• File:Chris Shays official photo.jpg: links to the source both don't work (one links to a pink and black site with text in a different language) and I could not find the original image. I suggest using a different image or finding an archived version of the image.
• Per MOS:UPRIGHT, images should use upright, not px, to be resized.
• Per MOS:ALT, I recommend adding alt text to images.

Additional comments not related to images:

• Per MOS:ALLCAPS the titles of sources should not have words in all caps.
• Ensure all sources have the name of the author (Ref 23 and 31 are missing the author, but there might be others)

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might take me a few days, but I'm on it; thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Hi, apologies for the delay but I believe I've resolved all the issues you've pointed out. Could you please see if I sourced the images correctly, since I wasn't too sure on those? Thanks for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; somehow I missed that the Senate table was missing rowscopes when I did my accessibility review so I just went ahead and fixed it myself; promoting. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back again with another hurricane season timeline! This time it's the 1994 Pacific hurricane season, which generated a trio of Category 5 hurricanes; that's a record for the most in one season, which still stands today (albeit having since been tied twice). One of them, John, became the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever recorded after it embarked on an 8,000-mile (!) voyage across the Pacific Ocean. I'm a little worried about the lede being too large, but I couldn't think of how to scale it back without excising valuable and relevant information. This was a more difficult endeavor than the 1993 EPAC timeline (FLC for that one is still in progress) because of a few data discrepancies that I have tried to address to the best of my ability. Overall, I believe that this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline FL (promoted last week) and the aforementioned 1993 timeline, and I look forward to the community's feedback. I will do my best to address concerns in a timely manner. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've had a go at barbering the lede; this is what it looked like before. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (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

• The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclogenesis over the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator and east of the International Date Line. - this is quite complex. Is the season "an event", or rather the article chronicles the events that took place during the cycle? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise an interesting point. This wording was chosen in line with what I have observed to be convention; out of the last six (chronologically speaking) featured hurricane season timelines within the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility—2016 Atlantic, 2018 Atlantic, 2018 Pacific, 2019 Atlantic, 2020 Atlantic, and 2020 Pacific—only the 2020 Atlantic timeline does not start with the "an event" wording. However, it has always seemed kind of odd to me, considering that each hurricane season can contain a large number of events within it. I have revised it to "The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was comprised of the events that occurred in the annual cycle..." although part of me worries this might be more complex; what do you think? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that "was comprised of" was changed by another editor to "consisted of", which I do not disagree with. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• These dates conventionally delineate the period each year when tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin according to the National Hurricane Center - I think this should probably come before the actual dates. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convention has historically been to put that tidbit after the dates, but I think I've managed to work something out. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The 1994 season was well above-average - this isn't really a part of a sentence. Presumably should prefix with "activity in" or something. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked this sentence a bit. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The lede have a lot of citations in it. Do they need to be there? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so, since those citations are being used to verify information that is present in the lede but not the body. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List

• My big worry here is that this isn't super accessible to non-hurricane afficianados. Some examples "Tropical Storm Aletta weakens into a tropical depression", "The aforementioned tropical depression strengthens into Tropical Storm Bud about 540 mi (870 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California", "Tropical Depression Four-E develops from a tropical disturbance about 1,035 mi", etc. even some glossary links would help.
• The image captions aren't very helpful. "Tropical Depression Three-C late on October 22, about 2.5 days before it would become Tropical Storm Nona" is particularly bad, I have no idea what that means. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pacific basin, the lowest classification of tropical cyclone is a tropical depression, which has sustained winds of fewer than 34 knots (39 mph; 63 km/h). Systems with winds at least that strong and up to 63 knots (73 mph; 117 km/h) are classified as tropical storms; the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center, the two Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres of the area covered by this timeline, assign names to tropical cyclones within their areas of responsibility when they reach tropical storm status. I worded the Three-C/Nona caption that way in an attempt to emphasize that the system had not yet become a tropical storm and received its name; I've rephrased it to hopefully make that clearer to readers, and will be double-checking other captions as well. I have also wikilinked the different classifications in the lede, and replaced "tropical disturbance" with "area of unsettled weather", which is terminology probably more familiar to people casually watching weather forecasts. (This post doubles as a reply to the first bullet in this section.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On that, what are these images exactly? Are these radar images, direct images or something else? The image descriptions don't help Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are direct images taken by satellite, which is pretty much the only way to obtain a full overhead view of a weather system as large as a tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclone articles tend not to specify in the visible captions that these are satellite images, probably for concision's sake; see Tropical Storm Hernan (2020), the most recently promoted tropical cyclone FA, for an example. Instead, the alt text conveys that these are satellite images, which is what I have done with the satellite images in this timeline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the captions starting "a satellite image of..." is particularly wordy, especially as it might be difficult to tell otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lee: I've taken a shot at it – please check the updated captions and let me know what you think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lee, just wanted to drop a quick reminder about this. Let me know if you have any other feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Lee, I just saw these more recent bullets; I'll be able to address them after I get home later this afternoon/evening. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 10:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee: Apologies again for the delay – replies inline! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (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)} 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lee for reviewing this. I've addressed one of your points and replied to it inline; I should be able to respond to the other points after I get home later today. (Sorry, I've had a busier past couple days than I anticipated.) Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have more, I just do it icrementally. Feel free to fix as I go along. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Wikilink basin like in the 1993 list.
• "John traversed the Pacific Ocean". to "Hurricane John".
• Jul 11: "Ka Lae" to "Ka Lae, Hawaii"
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the review, MPGuy2824. I believe I've addressed your comments; with regards to the third bullet, I have also done the same with all subsequent uses of "Ka Lae". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns with licencing.
• Images have alt text.
• Captions are fine.
• No other concerns.

Support based on image review. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 02:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After working on Rachelle Ann Go's list of songs and awards, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography which spans her career as a pop artist in Philippines and her transition into musical theater. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable in 2011, which" => "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable, in 2011, which"
• "In 2014, she debuted on the West End revival" => "In 2014, she debuted in the West End revival"
• Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• One source is in Tagalog ... that's not a problem, of course, I'm just giving notice that I don't know Tagalog.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support Dank. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The image looks good, and its from commons so no problem.
• I will know look over the sources, this might take a while.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Numbers from this revision [20]

  1. Good
  2. Good
  3. Good
  4. Good
  5. Good
  6. Good
  7. Good Consider archiving it though
  8. Good
  9. Good
  10. Good
  11. Good
  12. Good
  13. Good
  14. Good All have been checked
  15. Good
  16. Good
  17. Good
  18. Good
  19. Good
  20. Good
  21. Good
  22. Good
  23. Good
  24. Good
  25. Good
  26. Good
  27. Good
  28. Good

  • Support Good job on thisQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the source review and spot checks OlifanofmrTennant. Ref 7 has been archived. Much appreciate your time and effort. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think, with the previous comments, you will need my support, but I'll add mine anyways @Pseud 14: I hope we'll see this at WP:FTC soon! 750h+ 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second Marvel Cinematic Universe list I've nominated. While not the first to use credit scenes, the MCU popularized them for betrer or worse. -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A great article with a detailed coverage about a popular culture topic (I didn't know this existed!). Looking at the lead, at 4 sentences, it appears to be short. Having said that, I would suggest that perhaps you utilize the History section as the article's lead since it pretty much sums up what the article is about and what is outlined in the tables for each phases. It should work well IMO, including the primary image. The other prose sections after the table should be fine.

Here are the rest of my comments on the prose:

• S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson -- worth linking to S.H.I.E.L.D. on the first instance
• Other times these mid- and post-credits scenes -- comma after other times
• receives her next assignment: take down Clint Barton -- I think the colon can be dropped and just be written as receives her next assignment to take down Clint Barton, ...
• In the Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film -- In Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film
• A review noted that the scene -- a reviewer or perhaps attribute the name

Image review : Passed

• Non-free image has appropriate FUR for it's use on the article.
• Image is relevant
• Caption is OK, but perhaps, per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, the second sentence with the quote can be incorporated in the lead instead. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great and helpful review Pseud 14! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good and happy to support. I made some small edits. Btw, if you have some time and interest, I got something on the other side. Wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think for accessibility purposes alt text for the image would be great. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]