Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2020

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Reynolds is a Canadian actor known for his work in television shows such as Two Guys and a Girl, romantic comedies such as The Proposal and his title role in the Deadpool film franchise. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333([3]) 11:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this nom as it passes all the criteria for Featured-Article status. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 78 isn't in a citation template like the others so is missing work, author, date and retrieval date; you may want to archive it as well
• ref 63 missing author
• Publishers/works are linked in the first mentions, which is fine
• Inclusion of works/authors/titles looks good otherwise
• The only reliability issue I spotted was a youtube link, but it seems to be in addition to another ref so no issue there imo
• I'll pass when the first and second points are addressed. Aza24 (talk)

@Aza24: Thanks for the source review. I've fixed the above. Needed to update a few entries. The YouTube link is from the official SNL channel so should be ok. Cowlibob (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah looks good. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): HAL333 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Branching out a little bit, here is my first attempt at a biological list. The most interesting part of this list is probably the salamanders that are only found in Texas Hill Country, and sometimes only in specific cave systems. ~ HAL333([5]) 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "Once found througout" - typo
• "Rhinophrynus is a burrowing ant and termite eater, hence the common name "burrowing frogs"" - I would say "burrowing frog" singular, as it covers only one species
• "These large salamanders are often mistaken as eels" - can I check that this is US English? Over here we would say mistaken for something, but maybe this is valid US usage
• "hence the colloquial name "Conger Eels"" - don't think the C and E should be lower case
• "Salamandrids typically have patterns of bright and contrasting colours" - presume this article is intended to be written in US English, so the last word should not have a U
• Rio Grande lesser siren has no status, just an orange cell?

Texas lists it as an endangered species within the state, but it's a subspecies, and a contested one at that. And the IUCN doesn't give it a rating. ~ HAL333([6]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's it from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ HAL333([7]) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Medusa

• Order Anura links to a disambiguation page
• the monotypic Rhinophrynus → italic Rhinophrynus?
• fore limbs → forelimbs
• Images have no alt text

• Note that I am not an expert on this topic. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CAPTAIN MEDUSA Hopefully, I have addressed your concerns. ~ HAL333([8]) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

Ah, heard so much talk and complaining about the Barton Springs salamander (and other members of Eurycea) growing up in Austin, nice to see it.

• Bolding in the first sentence is unnecessary; doubly so since it's not even the actual title of the article.
• I find calling out specific species in the lead by their scientific name but not their common name reads oddly.
• "Eleven amphibian species have been designated as threatened within the state" - by who? Also, citations should go after punctuation marks at least, if not always to the end of the sentence, not just stuck after clauses
• The red/orange highlighting on cells violates WP:ACCESS- if you're colorblind or are using a screen reader, that information isn't present. You'll need to find some text-based way of indicating that information, either instead of or in addition to the colors.
• Speaking of WP:ACCESS, the white text on light blue for families is hard to read as a fully-sighted reader; I can't imagine it's easy with poor vision.
• You have some inconsistencies in capitalization for common names, e.g. "Greenhouse frog" instead of "greenhouse frog". That said, it looks strange to have the mixed capitals to start with with place names vs non; you may consider just always capitalizing the first letter since it's a standalone name
• For almost the entire list each row is a species, but for Siren intermedia you do subspecies; presumably because Texas calls out one subspecies as threatened. You should be consistent, and if there's an issue like that add have a note, not change the structure of the article. That would clear up the empty status cell, which should be an NE (not evaluated) otherwise

Okay - that was one of the things that I was confused about. I wasn't sure if I could list it as NE since the IUCN doesn't have a page on it. ~ HAL333([9]) 05:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider widening the common name column a hair at the expense of the status or distribution columns so that it doesn't wrap to two+ lines so much
• You link the common name of each species to the scientific name, which redirects to the common name- it's on purpose, but I don't know why.

I was replicating what the FL List of amphibians of Bulgaria did. I was halfway through when it occurred to me that it was redundant. ~ HAL333([10]) 05:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A is awkwardly formatted; you should either have each status on its own line or drop the colored blocks and just list the statuses out in prose

I'm sorry - I don't catch your drift. What would "each status on its own line" look like... ~ HAL333([11]) 07:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an idea. Would moving the content from note a to the top, like the table with Texas statuses, work? ~ HAL333([12]) 02:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PresN Sorry for the ping, but do you know how I could resolve this? ~ HAL333([13]) 00:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved, see my edit on October 19. --PresN 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a section named "Notes and references" subdivided into Notes and... Citations. It should be References- the citation is the in-line bit, the reference is the full work description in this section.

YI corrected that, but would that be acceptable in a biographical article where the citations section refers to a "Works cited" section below? ~ HAL333([14]) 23:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's apparently AmphibiaWeb, not Amphibiaweb
• "Texas parks & Wildlife Department" - parks
• Be consistent in linking publishers in refs- IUCN gets linked, so the rest should too-United States Geological Survey, etc.
• IUCN refs all need dois- they're listed on each IUCN page at the top (e.g. "|doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41630A45210528.en")
• It's standard in journal cites to use first initial instead of first name- you do so usually, but some of the IUCN cites you're using full name

That was another thing that I was confused about. Sometimes the IUCN gave the full name but other times it just gave the intial. ~ HAL333([15]) 16:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 173 (Animal Diversity Web) is missing the author
• Super-minor: {{cite iucn}} is a helper template for {{cite journal}}; as a result, you don't need to add archive-urls to it because you're citing a "journal" that has a website archive, rather than citing a transient website. It's a minor difference, and I wouldn't take the time to change it, but for future lists just know you don't need to add the archive.
• Also minor: if you have an archive for a live page, add |url-status=live to the cite so that the live page is the first link, instead of the very slow archive link.

--PresN 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hopefully, I have addressed most of your concerns. I'm a little confused on the the recommendation about changing the statuses. I'm also having some trouble with the coding in ref 129. ~ HAL333([16]) 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine. Some sentences need periods, such as "Although there are several poulations throughout the southeast US, this species is only known in Texas from a single specimen collect in Nacogdoches County in 1940"; there are judgment calls to make here, because you're trying to avoid periods when possible, but sometimes avoiding them won't work.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• The references are all to high-quality reliable sources.
• One formatting nit-pick I have is that the title of ref 7 should have an en dash instead of the present hyphen for style purposes. That's the only issue I was able to find with the formatting.
• The link-checker tool (and my manual check) shows that the Herps of Texas EL is dead. You should either find an updated link, add an archived version of the link or just remove it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ HAL333 19:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of my sourcing issues have been addressed, so I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, here is yet another in the never-ending country number ones project. So far 56 of these have been promoted to FL, so here's the next one, covering a year in which one of the most successful songs was about smoking cigarettes - not sure that would happen nowadays....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333([20]) 21:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! Support! Support! (apologies to Mr. Williams) – All looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the things I would suggest would be using {{abbr|Ref.|References}} for the table's reference heading and adding archive links to the online sources, but aside from those nitpicks everything looks good.--Alexandra^IDV 16:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

• "songs in the United States, based on the number of times a song" songs/song repetitive.
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " in jukeboxes; " for my benefit, where were these jukeboxes? How many were there? The List of Billboard number-one country songs article isn't very helpful in that sense. Indeed, shouldn't that article be linked here somewhere in the lead?
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, mildly confused now as this list says "The Juke Box Folk chart is considered part of the lineage of the current Hot Country Songs chart" but I though the link above was more relevant.
  • Apologies, I may be being very thick but I don't understand. What "link above" do you refer to? And could you clarify how the sentence is confusing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get it now - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " in the top spot." repetitive as you started the sentence with "The number-one position ..."
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " in the top spot since the issue of Billboard dated October 26, 1946," how many weeks was that?
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the chronology for Travis is mildly confusing, you could (and should) add that Tubb broke the Divorce Me C.O.D. run and went back to number one between Travis' hits.
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "He would have two " tres americain. "He had two"?
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• And then you go into "would" overdrive!
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " country number one singles" should that "number-one" be hyphenated?
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bob Willis (not the cricketer) was "widely known as the "King of Western Swing",[11]" but I looked at source 11 and could see that phrase at all. Our article also calls it "Western swing" rather than "Western Swing".
  • Different source found. Also note it's Bob Wills, not Willis :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for a quick western swing by. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: - all done bar one where I could do with some clarification....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – The reliability of the sources looks fine throughout and the link-checker tool shows no problems. Just a few random formatting issues to fix:

• The page range in ref 4 looks funky. You have two of the same number in there.
• Refs 3 and 4 should probably have the longer 13-digit ISBNs, for consistency and per MoS guidelines.
• Ref 2 could use an en dash in the title for the year range. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the changes look good. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the latest in the seemingly never-ending series of number one country songs FLCs, 56 of which have already been promoted and another looks to be on its way. All I can really say about this one is that it was definitely Eddy Arnold's year....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Florida Georgia Line spent a 22nd week → Florida Georgia Line spent the 22nd week
  • I do not believe that that would be correct English, I believe it is correct as it stands..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Between them the five songs → Between them, the five songs
• Add {{Use mdy dates|date=November 2020}} at the top.

• That's it from me. Great work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two done, see my response to the other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliabillity looks fine
• Ref 8 has a double page number
• refs 8 and 4 should be ISBN 13s like the others (use [https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter the converter)
• formatting is great otherwise Aza24 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. ~ HAL333 22:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I added {{sronly|Chart history}} as a table caption.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting with some comments in the edit summaries; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Louis Schwitzer Award is presented by the Indiana Section of SAE International to recognize innovative concepts used in racing cars entered for the Indianapolis 500. It is named after the inventor Louis H. Schwitzer and the winners of the award have their names added to a trophy on permanent display in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forward to all comments and concerns. Should the list pass this review, it would be the first FL for American open-wheel racing. MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Another great list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provides" => "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provide" (the subject is plural)
• "The award has been shared just once in its history: in 1977" - I think you need to re-word this. I know what you mean, but in 2002, for example, it was technically shared by six individuals
• "Firestone tire engineer Cara Adams became the first women recipient" - "women recipient" isn't correct. She isn't a "women". I think "female recipient" would work better.
• In the infobox there's an amusing typo in "Reward(s): Plague"
• Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made edits based on the comments made above. MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: still don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• A {{short description}} would be helpful ... something simple like "engineering award for racing vehicle improvements" would work.
• Personally, I have no problem at all with the sort order in the "Concept" column; I think sorting in columns like this one is mainly used to group similar items. But some reviewers prefer to sort "Beadall" under B (instead of sorting by quote marks) and to sort "2015 Chevrolet" under C (using "data-sort-value" or {{sort}}). Otherwise, I'm not seeing any problems with the table coding.
• FLC criteria:
• 1. I'd move "complying with IndyCar Series technical regulations" from the first to the second sentence. I don't get "engineer by". Otherwise, the prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine. There's an argument that several links are Easter eggs; "March 84C chassis", for instance, links to a company rather than a product. But I'm actually okay with the way you do it, I think.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
• 6. It is stable.
• Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made the suggested changes MWright96 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I linked some publishers/websites to make the linking consistent.
• Reliability is fine, formatting is good – easy pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

• "who receive a plague and have their names added to a permanent trophy on display at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum." I would hope that they receive a plaque instead of a plague, and this is before considering that way too many of us have received a plague this year. unfortunately.
• Minor point, but the first two words of the List of recipients section are superfluous and the title could be shortened to Recipients without losing anything in translation. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Both points have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – My pair of minor issues has been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third international goals list that I am looking to become featured. Although I do not support any of the clubs he played at, Shevchenko is one of my favorite players to watch from the 2000s. I have expanded the sources and the prose, and I am looking for whatever details I need for it to become featured considering it already passes WP:FL?. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: I finally finished the prose. What do you think? If there are minor edits which can be done, you can do them and just pass it. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 3 and 4 missing authors
• Ref 5 missing author and date (scroll to the bottom)
• Refs 1–5 missing retrieval dates
• If you're going to link RSSSF the you should link BBC sport and UEFA – doesn't look like the rest of publishers/works/websites have WP pages
• Reliability is fine, statistical information from statistical websites. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy ping for @KingSkyLord: in case they have missed these comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aza24, I think I fixed your concerns. Please take another look. Thanks! Cheetah (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave the lead a copy edit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because of it has covers Wp:Featured list criteria. Ali Daei is all-time men's top goalscorer with 109 goals and one of the Legend of AFC in all-time.this is one of the best list in this area.I've featured this list in fa wiki too. it has additional tables and informations from similar lists and i have improved it from this version to current version.i have noticed the details for all sections of this list too.thanks. Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is my first nomination and i've searched many references and read very lists to do my best.i spent much times for improving this list.please help me to solve the problems.thanks all of you--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes teammelli.com a reliable source?
• What makes national-football-teams.com a reliable source?
• The references need to be tidied: for example, if teammelli.com is reliable, then refs #86 to #93 need to be expanded to give more detail, while some other references need to be made consistent.
• Is the "Record of Iran, When Daei scored" table original research based on the RSSSF list?
• The "Stadiums that Daei scored in them" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by year" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by competition" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by confederation" table is unreferenced.
• The "Goals by opposition" table is unreferenced.

That's it on a quick first pass. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment.first thing i must say that i checked all the same lists and get note from each for improving this list. both site are reliable,i asked before from an admin and they are used in many articles include some featured list.for 1st ref you can see Category:Iran national football team results and for second ref, we have this {{NFT player}} so they are reliable.86 to 93 are additional refs and i improve them as you say.the record of iran becomes from the main table.add green column for example for winning and so..i solved them--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojtaba2361: Sorry, let me be clearer in my wording. Please demonstrate what makes "teammelli.com" and "national-football-teams.com" reliable, based upon WP:RS. Saying that "an admin" says it is okay is not sufficient. All references must be filled out to include all relevant information in a consistent fashion to meet FL criteria. To avoid further confusion, I currently oppose the promotion of this list due to the sourcing concerns. Harrias ^talk 17:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: a few sites have ali daei's statistic because he was older footballer.many refs are from 11v11.com as you can see List of international goals scored by Alfredo Di Stéfano (other candidates of fl) that use this. please see List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, many refs are from National Football Teams.95% of refs in my list are from above site.A few of them from teammelli or national football (for auxiliary links).if team melli.com wasn't reliable it couldn't be used in many articles.the template i pointed above is for national football team site. if it doesn't reliable it can't have template. i'll solve your concern about ref.wait please..--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: i Resolved your worries about refs Harrias, are you satisfied with it?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: how is it now?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I can see a lot of work has gone into this, and that I will return to review my concerns as soon as possible: tomorrow if I can. Harrias ^talk 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• I am still unconvinced that national-football-teams.com meets our criteria for a reliable source, please demonstrate why you think it does.
• Ref #4 appears to be dead.
• Ref #7 is missing the author details "armband", apparently, and the title of the website is "Sports Nova".
• For refs #91 and #93, reformat the website as FBref.com, per their site, and add "Sports-Reference" as the publisher. Harrias ^talk 09:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: i don't know how can i exactly prove that site is reliable but i know that that site has articles in two wiki and footnote template {{NFT player}}. In addition, many articles in Wikipedia use it as a source like: List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, List of Lebanon international footballers, Benjamin Mendy, List of Republic of Ireland international footballers and Leslie Notši . Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann the writer of the site is famous writer in this area and my search showed his name existed in 5241 articles of wiki. Only 8 of 94 Refs are from this site(about 8%) because 11v11 doesn't cover those matches so we can be a little flexible for using it.thanks.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ref 4 replaced with 2 other refs. other refs you said amended. Best regards--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started a discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Is national-football-teams.com a reliable source? to see if we can get any further on this issue with the help of WikiProject Football. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: please see the refs again. there's no separate NTF's refs.they are used as aid links.the main is RSSSF for those rows.is it ok now?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is still used alone as ref #10 and ref #48a. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reformat ref #4 to remove the website address, and use Persian Gulf Pro League as the publisher.
• Format the title of ref #5 in title case, and add These Football Times as the work.
• Ref #9, "Persian Times" should be the work, not the publisher. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: ref 10 changed and others  Fixed--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on this, I am now content that the sourcing requirements of the FL criteria have been met. Note that I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Editor7798 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• On a very cursory read, I'm spotting issues. "Iranian football player" seems like an WP:EGG. "Tehran times" is incorrect capitalization. There's a missing space at the end of a sentence in the introduction. Alt text is missing. I assume that for every error I spotted, there's likely quite a few I didn't. This needs some more work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: thanks for your cm. I amended them. I done many works for this article. Every featured nomination can have particall problems for solving. I have a few FL in Fawiki and a little experience here but i'll learn more and more--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have made two minor changes to the prose in the lead. MWright96 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can't see any issues.Pinkfloyd amir (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Every para of the lead starts with his (sur)name. Repetitive.
• Make it clear that it's association football as many of our readers have no idea that other codes of football exist.
• "all-time men's international top goalscorer" piped to a redirect, no good reason.
• FourFourTwo is a work.
• "On 28 November 2003, in an Asian Cup qualifier in Tehran against Lebanon, he scored his 85th ..." seems odd to discuss this before discussing his first ever international goal.

  the 1st para is about his record and it is a date for that--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " (also known as Team Melli) " only used once subsequently so remove and just refer to Iran as Iran.
• Tehran is overlinked in the lead.
• As is Laos.
• "in a friendly matches" just "match" here.
• "hat-trick" is used in three consecutive sentences making for boring and repetitive prose, please rework it.
• "Daei scored 36 goals in FIFA World Cup qualification matches and 23 goals in AFC Asian Cup qualification games, as well as 14 goals in AFC Asian Cup Finals. The remainder of his goals, 27," 36+23+14+27 = 100. But he scored 109? You've left out the 9 at the Asian Games....
• "against the Maldives and Laos," against two opposition teams, the Maldives and Laos.
• What makes fbref.com a WP:RS?

That's it on a really swift first pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man thanks for your Cm TRM. i amended all of above.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --John B123 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1917 is a 2019 war film directed and co-written by Sam Mendes. Inspired by stories told to the director by his grandfather, it chronicles the story of two young British soldiers (played by George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) in the spring of 1917 during World War I, who are given a mission to deliver a message warning of an ambush, soon after the German retreat to the Hindenburg Line during Operation Alberich. This is my first second film accolades list I am attempting to promote, and I largely based the format off of List of accolades received by The Artist (film) which was promoted in October 2015. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one Harrias on the assist :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing shortly Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 16 and 17 both missing date and author
• ref 26 missing retrieval date
• A translated title for ref 26 would be nice as well "|trans-title="
• ref 27 missing needs either publisher, website or work parameter
• ref 32 missing date
• ref 28 missing author and date
• ref 34 missing author and date
• ref 50 missing author and date
• ref 51 missing author and date
• ref 57 shouldn't be in all caps, it's a WP:MOS thing
• ref 59 missing author
• ref 60 missing author
• Everything else looks good. Reliability is fine. Aza24 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aza24:: Fixed: I have fixed everything listed above. Thanks for the feedback

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everything looks good now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I tried but I couldn't find anything. I remember seeing this last year — seems so long ago. )= ~ HAL333([26]) 20:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – This is a relatively minor issue, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, the one see also link should go before the notes. That is all I found. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have switched the See Also and Notes sections accordingly.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Please add the date in sources 16, 17, 18

• Fixed: There are now dates in all references.

• Typo in source no. 25: Upoan > Upon

• Fixed: Corrected misspelled word in title.

• Source no. 26 Does not show about the winners and nominations. Please find another source.

• Fixed: Replaced source with one showing winners.

• Source no. 41: This source does not show the winners. Please find another source, or add another source with the winners.
  • If you are adding another source and keeping this, change the title of this source to: ‘Hollywood,’ ‘Marriage Story,’ top nominations for Houston film critics’ awards

• Fixed: Added source from Houston Chronice that contains winners (might not appear if using incognito or private mode on browser).
  • Unable to review, as it says "article limit reached"

• The source said "article limit reached" because of a paywall. That does not mean the source is unacceptable because someone else can verify the source as per Wikipedia:PAYWALL policy. It's like the same thing as a reference in a book. One may not have access to the actual book, but someone can go access it if they have it in a library. Nevertheless, I replaced the Houston Chronicle sources with ones from the actual ones from the Houston Film Critics Society. I checked for pop up advertisements and such, and there has been none so far. So I fixed it.

• Yes, I know. I did not intend my comment to appear as an oppose. I just wanted to let you know I had been unable to review it. However, you did a good thing by replacing the Houston Chronicle sources with ones from the actual ones from the Houston Film Critics Society.

• Source no. 69: This source does not show the winners. Please find another source, or add another source with the winners.

• This source DOES SHOW the winners and nominees. If you keep scrolling down, there is a section that has the heading "THE 2019 WAFCA AWARD WINNERS" which contains the winners and another section that reads "The 2019 WAFCA AWARD NOMINEES WERE" wchich contains the nominees. Here is a screenshot of the winners section and another screenshot of the nominees section if you doubt me.

• Add the author names in sources 64, 71

• There is no author for ref 64 (now ref 65) since that website is not an article, but rather a webpage that just lists the winners. I went to the accolades page for Avengers: Endgame and the ref for the Seattle Film Critics Society contains no author. As for the last one I removed it because the reference before it already has an author and it sufficiently mentions the nomination along with its two nominated screenwriters.

Surge_Elec (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surge elec: I have addressed all your comments. Thank you for your feedback.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments

• Test first - When I clicked on source no. 57, I was redirected to advertisements on the same tab. The first time, three such advertisements came then this source opened. The second time, two advertisements came and this source opened. Please consider finding another source.

• Fixed: I initially got the same problem. So, I tried searching on Google for the OFCS website. I redid the entire citation reference. So it should work.

• In the sources, link the publishers / companies, to their respective Wikipedia pages: The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline Hollywood, Variety (magazine), Houston Chronicle, IGN.

• Fixed: Wikilinked all the periodical titles and websites in the resources.

@Surge elec: I responded to your latest comments. Thank you

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You had missed three. I Wikilinked them. I made two more edits. And now, I am happy to support. Surge_Elec (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We continue my animals-in-a-family journey through Carnivora (previously: felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids) with list #8: herpestids, encompassing the 34 species of herpestidae, aka mongooses (not, unfortunately, "mongeese"). These are fairly well known as a family—though the variety may be surprising—as most zoos have at least one of these species, usually the most famous one: the meerkat of television fame. As far as variety goes, however, unlike many families most of these species look fairly similar and are of similar sizes. Information on a lot of them is pretty scant as most are found in various bits of central-ish Africa; as a result, we're missing images for a few of them, and a few others have to make do with drawings. As always, the list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from mujinga

• overall looks very good to me, I like the maps showing the range of each creature
• the photo in the infobox is momentarily confusing since the yellow one in the pic is not the yellow mongoose
• "The species listed here are based on data from the Paleobiology Database, unless otherwise cited" nothing else is cited, so seems unnecessary to say "unless otherwise cited" Mujinga (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mujinga: Yeah, I didn't make that image; I find having a bright yellow mongoose not be the "yellow" one odd too, but animal names often don't make much sense in a global context. Removed the "unless otherwise cited" bit. --PresN 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• on the image would it be clearer to say "(clockwise from top left)" instead of "(top left to bottom right)"? Mujinga (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mujinga: Done, yeah, I think that's clearer. --PresN 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support then although I would be happier if someone who knows more than me about herpestids gave an opinion here also Mujinga (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Should White-tailed mongoose have a capital W in the middle of a sentence?
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "neritic marine"? It seems an obscure term......
• Think that's it from me. You've definitely got these down to a fine art now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: It should not, no; linked neritic zone. Thanks! --PresN 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I tried, but I couldn't find anything. ~ HAL333([28]) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references to are high-quality reliable sources and are well-formatted. The link-checker tool shows no issues, so I think we can call this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one active nomination, but it currently has three supports, a source review and no outstanding comments, so I believe it's OK for me to open up the next one. List number 3 of the Wales results series is ready to go now I feel and follows the same format as the previous two. Thanks to HawkAussie for doing much of the grunt work in converting the table before I got there. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "They went on to win the competition for only the second time in the nation's history after drawing with Scotland before defeating England for the first time since 1882" - bit of a long and tangled clause, suggest a re-write
• The above sentence also doesn't say what year this refers to. I presume it's 1920, following on from the previous sentence, but "they went on to....." could refer to a later year
• "The 1938–39 British Home Championship was the final hosting of the tournament before World War I" - spot the typo (or temporal anomaly :-))
• "Of the 62 matches Wales played during this period, they won 22: 8 against England" - any chance you could reword that so it doesn't look at a quick glance like they won an incredibly high-scoring game against England?
• If the game in 1933 against France was the first time Wales had ever played non-British opposition, I would mention it far more prominently than in the last sentence, where it comes across a bit like an afterthought.....
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for taking a look Chris, I've had a crack at fixing the above points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nice one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and may claim points for this review.

Sorry I missed the last list, but it looks like you got it sorted anyway!

• "..dubbed "Keenor and the ten unknowns".." By whom?
• "..achieved a creditable draw with Scotland.." The use of "creditable" here is an opinion and needs attribution.
• "..with Wales playing.." Avoid the Noun plus -ing|noun plus -ing construction used here.
• "The 1938–39 British Home Championship was the final hosting of the tournament before World War II, with Wales playing their final match of the period against France in May 1939. They had played France on one occasion beforehand, in May 1933, the first time Wales had faced a team other than the Home Nations." I understand why you've done it this way, but writing about the final match of the period, and then going back to discuss a match in 1933 feels odd, I wonder consider swapping these sentences around, and checking how the flow is then.
• Is there photo from the era we can use in the top right, above the navbox?

Overall, great work: the prose is well-written, the table works brilliantly and meets all the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for taking a look. I've rewritten the parts you picked out above, let me know what you think. In regards to an image, there's not much freely available. Most of the images hosted on Commons for this era didn't make it through a previous FAC review, so probably aren't appropriate. Kosack (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no worries, I guessed that might be the case. A shame, but not unsurprising for the era. Nice work as usual! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 06:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Couldn't find anything to pick you up on. ~ HAL333([30]) 17:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're including a location for Stead, you should include one for Oliver

Added. Kosack (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The ways the references stand now make it unclear where the information for either table is sourced from, this needs to be addressed somehow otherwise the reader would not be sure where to go to verify the information in the tables Aza24 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aza24: Addressed the two points above. I accidentally combined the refs rather than splitting into the statistics/general format used in previous lists. Kosack (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack, I would say its best to move the statistics citations next to the table (as inline citations) so they're clearly available for the reader. You could opt to do so like List of operas by Carl Maria von Weber#List of operas with a reference after the table name, or like the bottom of List of presidents of the United States#Presidents as examples; at the very a least a note at the top of the table referring to the statistics section as the references would suffice. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note directing readers to the statistics section below. Kosack (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, everything looks good now. I found no reliability issues or further formatting issues. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " in their remaining games secured the second Home Championship in Wales' history in the 1919–20 tournament." reorg: " in their remaining games in the 1919–20 tournament secured the second Home Championship in Wales' history."
• "release Welsh players" explain: "for international competition" or similar.
• " in which Wales" -> "where Wales"
• "conceding 17 goals in the process and scoring only 2 in reply." -> "conceding 17 goals while scoring just 2" or similar.
• Link "non-League".
• " before being replaced by more senior players" odd phrasing. I guess you mean the Welsh team had more senior players in the next match but this is a little unclear.
• " 8 against England and Ireland and 6 against" ->" 8 against both England and Ireland, and 6 against"
• Tynecastle Park doesn't need to be piped.
• Gibson, Fowler and O'Callaghan piped to redirects.

That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review, I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something different from yours truly, an television engineering and technology award called the Philo T. Farnsworth Award. Named after the inventor of the first fully all-electronic television system Philo Farnsworth, the award is presented as part of the Primetime Engineering Emmy Awards to companies, agencies and organizations who have made a great impact in television engineering and technology. I believe the list meets the criteria to become a featured list and look forward to all comments and concerns. MWright96 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333([34]) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The ATAS present" - I would suggest this should be "The ATAS presents"
• "....designed by television engineer Louis McManus at an annual award ceremony" - this kinda reads like he designed it at an awards ceremony, might need a slight reword
• Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed both points. MWright96 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suport -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and may claim points for this review.

• All major content is sourced.
• Ref #3 has a couple of issues: it says it is from the "Television in American Society Reference Library", but it looks like an "Encyclopedia.com" article? It also has a published date from after the archive date.
• Ref #9, surely "D. McAdams, Deborah" should be "McAdams, Deborah D."?
• Ref #14, "Deadline Hollywood" should be a work, not a publisher.
• All references are to sources which meet the requirements of WP:RS.
• References are made in an appropriate, consistent style (with the exceptions of the minor points above.)
• One minor non-source related point: could you expand the Nationality column to show the whole country name, not just the three letter code?

That's it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Harrias: Have made changes in accordance with the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good then, source review passed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Have addressed both points. MWright96 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the successful promotion of Lithuania and the nomination of Sweden going well, it's time we move to the new region. The Netherlands has quite some sites, and some are overseas. I'm not sure if the layout of the two maps it optimal but we can play with that. The rest of the list follows the standard style. Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Surely the Netherlands and Curacao should be linked in the lead?
• Could do with an explanation in the lead of Curacao's status
• "The first site added to the list was Schokland and Surroundings, in 1995" - no reason for that comma
• There's an unnecessary gap before ref 2
• "It was an inhabited peninsula since pre-historic times" => "It is a peninsula which had been inhabited since prehistoric times"
• "It is the only fortification....." - in the Netherlands? The whole world?
• "draininig the water from the polders" - first word is spelt wrong
• "Construction of hydraulic began" - hydraulic what? There's at least one word missing here
• "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by the people" => "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by people". Is there a more specific word than "people"? Were they merchants?
• "which reflect the mix of Dutch cultural influences with those of Spanish and Portuguese" => "which reflect the mix of Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences"
• " large sections of the population of Low Countries" => " large sections of the population of the Low Countries"
• "and, under the supervision of Johannes van den Bosch constructed" - need a comma after Bosch to close off the clause
• "combination of education, healthcare and (forced) labour" - earlier you used US English spelling "-ize", so you should change the spelling of the last word to match this
• "to ensure the self-sufficiecy" - spelt wrong
• "They were run on slave labour" - same note re: US spelling
• "Curaçao is a constitute country" - penultimate word is spelt wrong
• Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I'm through, sorry it took a while. All fixed. I got rid of the footnotes (from some previous versions) as I could get everything to the lead. --Tone 20:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that all of the sources, other than 3, are UNESCO sources everything looks good. The other 3 are reliable and formatted correctly, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - sorry I forgot to revisit this one for so long...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work. ~ HAL333 04:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Netherlands accepted" our article is at Netherlands so I'd expect this to read "The Netherlands accepted..."

Fixed.

• Now for confusion. Is it the Netherlands or the Kingdom of the Netherlands??

I think I got this right. Netherlands as the country, per UNESCO. Kingdom, because of Curaçao and Bonnaire.

• "[3][4][5]." errant full stop.

Done.

• "Schokland symbolizes the struggle of the people of the Netherlands against the sea." tourist brochure time.

Good point, rephrased.

• "in 1859. In the 1940s" repetitive.

Rephrased.

• "symbolizes" vs "defence" vs "kilometre" which variant of English is in play here?

Will go with the UK style.

• Link every linked item in the table every time, it's sortable. E.g. polder isn't linked first time anyway....

Added link. Not sure if I got all you had in mind.

• "Water Board Assembly Houses" what are these? Captialised, notable?

This is from the source.

• "Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station)" is piped to a redirect, why?
• Link Friesland. And Wouda.

Fixed both.

• "It still functions today" see WP:CURRENTLY.

@The Rambling Man: This one is tricky. I see the same comment for the Poland list. I have two options here. I could either go with "at the time of listing", as per the source, or I could check the homepage of the place and say As of 2020^[update], though this sounds a bit OR/SYNTH to me. What do you suggest? I am more inclined to the first option.

First option works for me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done :) --Tone 19:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the Renaissance planning principles." no need for "the".

Fixed.

• "four units make up a square" don't understand this.

Removed, little added value.

• "of De Stijl movement" of the De Stijl...
• "It is now preserved ..." as above "now/today/currently" etc.
• "harbouring species such as harbour seal" unfortunate repeat of "harbour"
• "2,700 hectares" convert.
• "over ... over" one could be "more than".
• "entire Caribbean Sea" no need for Sea.
• " and (forced) labor to " vs " slave labor", call it as it is?

Not this one, that was partially a penal colony. The one in Curaçao was slave labor.

• "y tropical climate. Due to the climate," repetitive.

Reworded.

• "along the river Rhine" river is nugatory.

Probably.

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I'm through, just let me know what you think about the point above. Great review, thanks! --Tone 17:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [36].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stupas are used as a place of meditation. This list shows notable stupas in Nepal. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• You say "This list shows notable stupas in Nepal" - are there others? If the ones listed are the notable ones, what makes them notable and the rest not notable?
• "Stupas in Nepal date back to the Licchavi period," - that comma should be a semi-colon
• "Swayambhunath is one of the oldest known building in the country that was likely built in the 5th century CE" => "Swayambhunath is one of the oldest known buildings in the country and was likely built in the 5th century CE"
• "Ashoka's daughter Charumati who married a Nepali prince; built" => "Ashoka's daughter Charumati, who married a Nepali prince, built"
• "which badly damaged and completely destroyed the top part" - well if it was completely destroyed then clearly it was badly damaged, so the first part is redundant
• "Near Thamel, Kaathe Swayambhu, a replica of the Swayambhunath is located that was built in 1650" => "Kaathe Swayambhu, a replica of the Swayambhunath that was built in 1650, is located near Thamel"
• "there are few stupas" => "there are several stupas"
• "The World Peace Pagoda was built by Japanese Buddhist" => "The World Peace Pagoda was built by Japanese Buddhists" (unless it was genuinely built by just one guy :-))
• "near the stupa, there is a gravestone of a monk who murdered" => "near the stupa is the gravestone of a monk who was murdered"
• No co-ordinates for The Great Drigung Kagyud Lotus Stupa - surely its location is known?
• The "established" column does not sort correctly
• Stupas which are heritage sites do not have the dagger symbol against them which the key suggests they should
• In the table you use BC and AD, but in the lead you used BCE and CE
• Where there is more than one ref on a row, they should be in correct numerical order
• Think that's it from me. Thanks for an interesting read about a subject I knew nothing about....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, All done. To become notable to be in this list, it must receive basic coverage via books, news etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although if all of these are considered notable then it would be nice to see articles created on the three that are currently redlinks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~ HAL333([39]) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As I couldn't find any issues with reliability and these formatting concerns below are minor I have implemented them myself. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ref 5 as a book needs an identifier of some kind. There's no ISBN but an OCLC on world cat
• ref 26 needs OCLC Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The list still mixes AD, B.C., and CE. Chose one of BC–AD or BCE–CE (and not B.C.). Charumati Stupa is furthermore noted as established in the "4th century" while Swayambhunathdagger as "5th century CE". I guess "CE" can be skipped here.
• Some stupas have "stupa" included in their name, others not. World Peace Pagod is called a pagoda, not a stupa. Myanmar Golden Temple is called a temple. How come?
• Are there suitable interlanguage links to add to the red-linked articles?
• There are four UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the list but no mention of this in the lead, it could be worth to add a line or two about it.

That's it from me at the moment. Yakikaki (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, I believe that I have resolved your comments. Stupas can be called by various names such as "pagoda" "temple" etc. Also, I could not find any interlanguage links. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the list still mixes AD and B.C. though. Please remove the B.C. and replace it with BC. Yakikaki (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, Done, Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Sorry to be a bother but I had one more thing in mind. I would suggest you to switch places between the first sentence of the lead, and the first part of the second sentence until the semi-colon ("Stupas in Nepal date back to the Licchavi period"), and then bold Stupas in Nepal in accordance with MOS:BOLDLEAD. Yakikaki (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakikaki, Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been swiftly addressed. I hereby give my support. Yakikaki (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, it's yet another country music number ones list. So far 55 of these have been successfully promoted to FL, so I next present the list for 1946, when notably the chart methodology of the time allowed no fewer than four songs to tie for the number-one spot in one week..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and might claim points for this review.

• Table query: why do you merge cells for the Title, Artist(s) and Ref. columns, but not the Issue date?
• Consider using {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}} to produce Ref. in place of just "Ref." in the header row.
• File:Bob Wills Texas Playboys Publicity Photo - Cropped.jpg The license claims that "it was published in the United States between 1925 and 1977", but the date listed in the information is 2013. This needs to be corrected so that we can demonstrate that the license is appropriate.
• Other images seem fine to me.
• "..the "King of Western swing"." According to who? If this was a common moniker, maybe just rephrase to something like "..who was widely know as the "King of Western swing"."

That's it from me. There's a few "would this" and "would that"s I would changed to a straight past tense, but nothing major. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - all addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. I ultimately decided to swap the lead image for a different one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB when I merged the rows for the dates it caused some of the song/artist/ref rows to disappear (Dick Thomas against February 2 was one) and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the issue was, so I wound up going with a sort of halfway house...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work: prose is of good quality, the list meets ACCESS requirements, all the stuff I'd expect from a FL pro. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Can't find anything, nice work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nothing I could pick up on. I look forward to the day when I can support your nomination for this massive featured topic. (= ~ HAL333([41]) 22:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind words, HAL333. The only issue I can see with a potential FT is the "cap stone" article. I can't see how List of Billboard number-one country hits could be expanded to FL status...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh well... ~ HAL333([42]) 16:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • HAL333 - it might be possible, I've had a germ of an idea today...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fingers crossed (; ~ HAL333([43]) 16:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it should be possible. But if not, remember that WP:WIAFT #3(c) says that: "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i)." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass – I updated the ISBN 10s to 13. Consistent formatting and reliability, good work as always Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [44].[reply]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Phoenix is an American actor who has received various awards and nominations, including one Academy Award. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to Support this nomination. ~ HAL333([47]) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

Source review passed, and I am now happy to support this nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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