Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2023

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest in this series, and we power on into the 80s in the company of the Brothers Johnson, the Isley Brothers and a couple of Jackson brothers. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm long overdue to give you a FL feedback since you given so many to mine. This is another fantastic list of yours and as someone whose interests besides Latin pop/tropical are R&B and adult contemporary, you have great taste in music! My only question is, does the source for Joel Whitburn's book explicitly call MJ's Off the Wall a "breakthrough album"? I'm not doubting it of course, but it might help to put a quote where he calls it a breakthrough album, if possible. Erick (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: - I haven't got the book to hand to check that point right this moment, so I added an additional source (the Whitburn source can be left in as I know that it definitely confirms that it was the second straight number one from that album) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'm looking at "Celebration" and tried to wonder how to re-work on it being the final song of the year, or rather to move it after the sentence "although "Celebration" did not reach the peak of the pop listing until the following year". Maybe something like "Celebration" was also the final number one of the year and first reached the top of the chart in the issue of Billboard dated December 20" Or something like that? If it's not feasible, that's completely fine. I still support this list. Erick (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• "it was the second consecutive single from his breakthrough Off the Wall album to reach the peak position" - neither Whitburn 1988 or BBC says Rock With You is on Off the Wall. However, Whitburn 1988 does show it was his 2nd consecutive #1. If you want to focus on that instead, it's up to you.
• ""Rock With You" and "Upside Down" by Diana Ross and "Celebration" by Kool & the Gang...also reached number one on the Hot 100 pop singles chart" - This is cited with Whitburn 1983 p. 5. However, only part of this sentence (that the Hot 100 is a pop chart) is verified. Whitburn 1983 pages 691-692 should be recited here for Ross and Kool & the Gang.
  • Side note: the sentence sounds like a run-on with mutliple ands & multiple alsoes.
  • ""Rock With You" and "Upside Down"" -> ""Rock With You", "Upside Down" (as Rock With You is not by Diana Ross).
• Benson's page at Whitburn 1988 is 40.
• One in a Million You at Larry Graham entry's in Whitburn 1988 is 172.
• "having spent time in the top spot as a member of Sly & the Family Stone" - Graham's entry at Whitburn 1988 only has Grand Central Station. Would need Sly & the Family Stone's entry to show he had a #1 between 1966-72 with them.

Table:

• The Brothers Johnson song is listed as Stomp. Need a source to say it's titled with the exclamation mark.
  • Whitburn (1988) lists it with a ! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Full name of The Isley Brothers song is Don't Say Goodnight (It's Time For Love) (Parts 1 & 2).
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The S.O.S. Band song is listed as Take Your Time (Do It Right). Need a source to show Part 1.
  • Whitburn (1988) lists it as part 1 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not 100% sure Part 1 should be in square brackets for The S.O.S. Band. Google shows me images of CDs with curly brackets around Part 1 or without brackets. If a source has it with square brackets, it's fine to keep them.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Funkin' For Jamaica (N.Y.) is the full name of the Tom Browne song --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the song names, Whitburn 1988 can be cited next to the song name for The Brothers Johnson and The S.O.S. Band. Whitburn doesn't have Part 1 with brackets, so I guess they should be removed. My mistake. Also, (Parts 1 & 2) could be part of the wikilink for The Isley Brothers song like how Take Your Time (Do It Right) (Part 1) is for The S.O.S. Band. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • @MrLinkinPark333: - everything above actioned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - thank you for the quick changes! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - pass - The word "secure" should be removed in the source and author urls in File:Bob-Marley 3 (cropped).jpg. No issues with any of the other images.
• The close-proximity double link to Black music is present on this one as well :-)
• "the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of black music and since 2005 has been published as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs." - I would suggest commas before and after "and since 2005"
• "his breakthrough Off the Wall album" => "his breakthrough album, Off the Wall"
• "Stevie Wonder spent one more week in the top spot" => "Stevie Wonder spent an additional week in the top spot"
• "also reached number one on the Hot 100 pop singles chart" - I've never seen the Hot 100 described as the pop singles chart since songs of all genres usually enter it. Was this different in 1980?
  • This came about based on a previous FLC when I couldn't produce a source that explicitly described the Hot 100 as an "all-genre chart". To add, my understanding (based on stuff I read in probably unreliable sources but I have no reason to disbelieve it) is that in the 1980s songs couldn't enter the Hot 100 unless they were being played on pop music radio, hence how you could have a song like the Tom Browne one which topped this chart but didn't enter the Hot 100 at all. But explaining all that is probably outside the scope of this article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the Dick Griffey mention warranted? Assumably the booking agent probably wasn't credited by Billboard? Either way, I'm not sure "masterminded" should be in wikivoice.
  • Just thought it was an interesting snippet. I changed "masterminded" to "assembled" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if the above verification check doubles as a source review too, but all of the references look consistently formatted and reliable to me so this passes my source review just in case.--NØ 11:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--NØ 12:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment - Ref 19 needs a publisher (Billboard). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not too late to the party.

• For the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • @Pseud 14: - done - I always forget that! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• My only quibble. Seems to be in solid shape now as we would expect from your work. "Master Blaster" is a Stevie gem. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

This page is listed as still needing a source review. I've looked over the sources and they all appear relevant and appropriate for the given context and information they are being used to verify. Ref formatting also looks good.

Source review passed, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in the series of Snooker World Rankings list nominations. 1981/1982 was the first list not topped by Ray Reardon. Cliff Thorburn, the 1980 World Champion known as "The Grinder", led the rankings. Alex Higgins would have been higher, but was docked points after he was late returning to an exhibition match, allegedly because he was occupied playing Space Invaders. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There seems to be a random "Steve Davis" after "fifth to third"

• I wonder about myself sometimes. Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The professional world rankings for snooker players in the 1980–81 season are listed below" - copy and paste error.....?

• Indeed. I've also corrected a link at Snooker world rankings 1980/1981. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the only time you use thr 19xx-yy format, elsewhere it's 19xx/19xx

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Not sure if it's displaying for you, but there's an odd space before the flag next to Sinclair's name in the table
• Citations to newspapers.com often have that in the via parameter

BennyOnTheLoose, nothing else from me, lovely work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. Well spotted on the spacing for Sinclair - I've fixed that. Also added "via Newspapers.com2 where applicable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• "the 1980 Champion" - shouldn't champion not begin with a capital letter in this instance?
• Higgins had arrrived late" - typographical error
• "who had previosuly" - same problem as above
• "Karnehm published a "Supreme Snooker League Table" table" - repetition of the word "table"

That's my lot for this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've fixed those. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Krashaon19 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is high enough quality... Krashaon19 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No article should start with "This is a list...."
• Bath played in leagues prior to 1908 (eg Bristol and District League), so it isn't true that they only "joined competitive football" in that year
• Link Western League in first sentence
• "The club spent the first three years of its history in the early 1890s as Bath association football club" - is this relevant if the list doesn't start till 1908?
• "though Bath has missed out" => "though Bath missed out" (election has not been an option for over 30 years, so this tense is more appropriate)
• "including 1935, 1978 and in 1985" - why is "in" randomly in front of the last date?
• "beating league sides such as; Crystal Palace" - no reason for semi-colon there
• "Albeit, they were promoted" - no reason for "albeit"
• "played in the conference for the first time since 1997" - Conference should have a capital letter, also it isn't linked, also you say they played in the Conference "again", but this is the first mention of it
• "In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles - 1929–30, 1930–33, three" - you need a closing dash to mirror the starting dash, not a comma
• You need the arrows to indicate promotion and relegation in the key
• The top goalscorer column sorts alphabetically based on forename. It should sort based on surname
• You should add a note indicating how Bath went from the WL to the SL in 1921
• Bath were in the SL Premier Division from 1959 onwards, why do you just show this as "SL" in the table (making it look like they were relegated from the Southern League to the Southern League Division One, which makes no sense)
• The Conference was a single division from 1986 until 2004 and was not called the Conference Premier, so the abbreviation CP is not appropriate
• "Includes goals in the, Conference" - that comma is not needed
• "League and cup matches (including Southern League, Alliance Premier League/Conference and National League South, and FA Cup and FA Trophy are counted, but excluding Western League and play-off matches)." - the closing bracket should be after National League South
• "From 1920 to 1958, one of the highest levels of non-league football was The Southern League" - no reason for capital T on The
• "....being on a similar level to that of the Football League Third Division" - this is not true
• "Football League Fourth Division was created" - why is this relevant?
• "no non-league teams were allowed to apply for election to the English Football League that year." - this is not true
• "Though winning the division, Bath missed out on election to the English Football League for a second time." - it was not called the English Football League at that point in time
• Also that note needs a full stop
• "Bath missed out on election to the English Football League for a third time" - both those last two points apply here too
• "With the formation of the Conference South in 2004, The Southern league became tier seven" - there should not be a capital on The, but there should be one on league
• "Subsequently, The club" - no reason for capital T on the
• What makes https://bathcityfcarchive.x10host.com/ a reliable source? It just looks like some random guy's personal website on a free hosting service
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Chris will try and resolve these issues. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing I would add, is that the source is reliable, though it's appearance is rather un-professional and a tad tatty, the creator and editor of the site is an employee of the club, he has been with City for 15 years and has vast knowledge of the club's history, the archive used to be on the official club site, but was moved when the Bath City website was redeveloped, though it looks like it, it is not just a random fan's free hosting service.

  Everything else you mentioned seems spot on though, and I will change it strait away. Krashaon19 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand the note "Bath's closest chance to gaining entry into the football league, gaining 23 points, 3 points short of Wigan Athletic." Do you mean they got 23 votes in the election? If so, use the word "votes", as "points" is confusing given that they gained points during the season. And I am baffled where Wigan come into the picture. They were in the Third Division in 1985 so wouldn't have factored into the election voting in any way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry the note was meant for the 1977–78 season. Krashaon19 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It still doesn't make sense. In 1977-78, Bath finished top of the SL (Premier Div) with a record of played 42; won 22; drawn 18; lost 2; GF 83; GA 32; pts 62. Wigan finished second in the NPL with pld 46; w 25; d 15; l 6; gf 83; ga 45; pts 65. I don't see the figure 23 anywhere in these records. Also, you cannot compare points in one league with those in another league covering a different part of the country, especially when the number of matches played differed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No sorry, it isn't clear, as Chris says the club claimed 23 votes in the election to the football league, not 23 points, I'll change it now. Krashaon19 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krashaon19: - just wondering if you plan to return to this? A number of the points I raised a month ago (top goalscorer column sorting based on forename being one of the main ones) haven't been addressed as yet...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes sorry! I have just been extremely busy in real life the past month. I didn't realise it was only the nominator who is able to edit, also as I explained to MyCatlsAChonk, I am not too sure how to change the sortname format, would extremely appreciate a helping hand in terms of the actual editing if that's allowed? Thanks, have a good day. :) Krashaon19 (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that only the nominator can edit the article, but it is expected that if someone nominates an article then they will be the one responding to and actioning issues raised. It's certainly OK to ask for guidance on how to do something but the onus is still on the nominator to actually make the changes to the best of their ability rather than expecting someone who has commented to make the changes which they themselves have raised. In terms of name sorting, I am more than happy to advise on that: you would need to use a template, so instead of having, for example, [[Joe Bloggs]] you would have {{sortname|Joe|Bloggs}} That would still display the same in the list but would sort based on B rather than J. Hope that helps!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is very helpful, I'll do my best, albeit, if it is me doing the majority (80-90%) of edits, this may take a long time. I'm just too busy in real life at the moment. I really would love to see this list gain featured article status, I have no idea how far off it is currently. Krashaon19 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Earwig is showing a big copyvio issue on this site- though, I'm not sure if the site copied from Wikipedia. ChrisTheDude, what're your thoughts on this, being a much more experienced editor? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Add Template:Use British English or the like
• The club is affiliated to the Somerset FA - to the Somerset? Should be with the Somerset- Or is this some football standard term Im unaware of?
• The club were crowned Southern League champions - was crowned
  • Jumping in to add, it's actually correct as it stands in British English - team names are considered plural when referring to the actual team competing on the pitch (as opposed to the corporate entity which they represent). See, for example, this news article, the opening words of which are "Manchester United were crowned champions", or this one, which actually uses the exact wording "the club were crowned champions".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In total, Bath have won two - has won
  • Same as above. It's always "Liverpool have won the league" and never "Liverpool has won the league" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying! Struck out those points MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles - 1929–30, 1930–33 - three Southern League titles - 1959–60, 1977–78, 2006–07 - one Southern League Cup - one Football League North - 1943–44 and twenty five Somerset Premier Cups - this is divided oddly, and the dashes are not being used correctly. I think it'd be better with parentheses: "In total, Bath have won two Southern League Western Section titles (1929–30, 1930–33); three Southern League titles (1959–60, 1977–78, 2006–07); one Southern League Cup; one Football League North (1943–44) and twenty five Somerset Premier Cups"
  • Also, why no years for the Southern League Cup?
• I know nothing about football, so I don't know what the letters in the headers under "League" mean; add a link or efn
• All the names under the "Player(s)" header should be sorted by last name (see Help:Sortable tables for more info)
• Why is the "Average attendance" column not sorting in number order?
• The "Ref" header doesn't need to be sortable (see Help:Sortable tables#Making selected columns unsortable for details)
  • Also, use Template:abbr in the header to make it Ref
• Footnotes a, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j all need citations
• Why is Miller 2003 listed under "References" if no citations point towards it?
• All the citations to the Bath Chronicle should have "Bath Chronicle" removed from the publisher parameter and put in the website parameter. Then, put British Newspaper Archive in the via parameter
• Remove ISSN from ref 4 to comply with the style of other citations
• What makes the following sources reliable:
  • www.totalguidetobath.com
  • bathcityfcarchive.x10host.com
• Remove the period from the caption of the image, per MOS:QINQ

Krashaon19, all done; a bit of work needed, but lovely job on the consistency of the table cells! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, is it allowed if you edit some of the issues you listed above, or does it have to be the nominator? Just fairly inexperienced. Thanks. Krashaon19 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krashaon19, I certainly can, if you're confused about some- I do realize it can be confusing, particularly regarding the table formatting. What do you need assistance on? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I'm not great at putting sources into notes and also changing the way in which a column is sorted. Probably some of the things that confuse me the most about what you listed. Krashaon19 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krashaon19, go ahead and address all the ones you can above. If you're confused about one, just leave it as is- if you fix it, use <s> and </s> to strikethrough the comments. This will tell me which ones need fixing by me. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay I'll do my best :) Krashaon19 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strikethrough the errors that I've fixed now. (Apologies should've done this weeks ago.) Krashaon19 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MyCatIsAChonk! I've done my best with some of the errors you stated, albiet, looking through the list, I don't quite understand some of your points, sorry if I seem blunt:

• "Why is Miller 2003 listed under "References" if no citations point towards it?" - I don't quite understand what you mean by this. I've added Kerry Miller's book in the "general reference" section.
• "All the citations to the Bath Chronicle should have "Bath Chronicle" removed from the publisher parameter and put in the website parameter." Then, put British Newspaper Archive in the via parameter - The Bath Chronicle is the publisher of the source, not the website I found the information on?
• "I know nothing about football, so I don't know what the letters in the headers under "League" mean; add a link or efn" - I assume the majority of viewers reading a sixth tier, non-league club's season history article will know at least a bit about football.
• "What makes the following sources reliable: bathcityfcarchive.x10host.com" - I have explained this to Chris above.
• "Remove the period from the caption of the image, per MOS:QINQ" Nearly every football club article on the English Wikipedia states the period that an image was taken, surely the reader should be able to view this?

I apologise if I'm being ignorant, perhaps you could elaborate in more detail some of the issues stated above if I have misinterpreted, thanks a lot :)

Everything else you have stated seems spot on, and I have either fixed it, or I am currently in the process of fixing it (e.g. adding citations to the notes) Krashaon19 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Krashaon19 wonderful! Clarifications below:

• Apologies, I'm not sure why I wrote the Miller one, I can now see the references
• The Bath Chronicle is a newspaper, not the publisher. British Newspaper Archive is simply archiving tons of newspapers for use. The Template for those should be cite news rather than cite web- it will provide more accurate parameters
• We cannot assume a reader will understand a topic well enough to comprehend something. What if they found this article because it's the TFL? What if they got here through the "Random article" button? No, all the details here must be clarified
• No, I mean the literal period, as in the punctuation. MOS:CAPFRAG (QINQ was the wrong policy, sorry) says that periods should be excluded when there's no complete sentence

MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: - in the nom's defence, many people here in the UK don't know that that punctuation mark is called a period in other parts of the world. Here in the UK we call it a full stop....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for the clarification, very helpful, I'll go about fixing these issues now. :) Krashaon19 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll strikethrough comments that I've fixed if that's alright. Krashaon19 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very good work! And, thanks for the clarification Chris. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks @ChrisTheDude and @MyCatIsAChonk for your help, very much appreciate it Is there anything else that needs to be done? Have a good week. Krashaon19 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Do you know if the article is close to getting to featured list status? I'm not really sure what to do now. Any thoughts on this @ChrisTheDude? Krashaon19 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One quick thing - the average attendance column does not sort correctly, it treats 500 as being higher than 4,940 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's caused by the comma.  Fixed by using the data-sort-value= attribute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One last question.......there are separate notes against the headers at the top and bottom of the "top goalscorer" column (notes C and K) and they contradict each other in terms of which competitions are counted. So which is accurate...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you’re right, note K shouldn’t exist, I’ve removed it and added some competitions to citation C, it’s accurate now. Krashaon19 (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; 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.
• 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. ![[1901–02 in English football|1901–02]] becomes !scope=row | [[1901–02 in English football|1901–02]]. 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. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about the winners of the Indianapolis 500 Rookie of the Year and the Indianapolis 500 Fastest Rookie of the Year. I began reworking this list in December 2022 and now believe it meets the FLC criteria. All comments are warmly welcome EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• I don't quite understand the point of the quotes in the opening sentences, these could very easily be paraphrased (and, IMO, they should be)
• Is there any other photo that could be in the infobox? The current one is rather ghastly (no offense to uploader)
  • I am unable to find another suitable photograph for the infobox EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Sportsmanship is a drivers' relationship to fellow racers and fans - "with" fellow racers...
• Voters are encouraged by the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) - who votes is defined? Also, does the speedway itself encourage them, or does the organization that runs it encourage them?
• Competitors who outperform in their equipment during qualifying and the race, as well as those who led laps but retired, are given leeway. - could be my lack of knowledge on IndyCar, but what does "led laps but retired" and "given leeway" mean in this context?
• It has formerly been sponsored by - who sponsors it now?
  • It has no sponsor as of now EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The rules state that the driver must be a rookie - likely worth defining rookie or linking to a definition page
• drivers were evaluated on their willingness to follow United States Auto Club regulations, mental attitude, willingness to listen - willingness is used twice; replace one of them with a different word
• The term "appearance" was defined by officials in 1958 as a driver who paid for or took part in prize money for one of the race's 33 starting spots. - why is this sentence here? Appearance is not mentioned in any of the criteria; in fact, this is the only time "appearance" is seen in the prose
  • Clarified that this was a rule change regarding who would be counted as a rookie from 1958 onward 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• They disqualified drivers - who's they?
• It was established - "the award" was established, or similar; just don't use a pronoun to start a paragraph
• Wl "points-based voting system" to Positional voting
• The Herff-Jones Co. spent $6,000 - when? If before 2000, we should get a price in parentheses or an efn that says the price adjusted for modern inflation
  • Added note to state the price adjusted for inflation EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It features the number 500 - avoid "it" here, as you've now brought many parts of the trophy into the question, so I'm not sure what "it" is
• Footnote d: if the years are stated in the other footnote listing price changes, years should be listed here too
• Under "References" what is the point of the "General" subheader? I cannot find any sfns or other references that direct to those
  • I was using those to verify the extra details in the main tables but have incorporated the references into the main ref list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EnthusiastWorld37, quite a few issues with the prose, but I'm sure you'll get them fixed up well! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MyCatIsAChonk: I have made changes based on your comments and have commented where appropriate. Let me know if there is anything I have missed or if there is anything else that needs addressing EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - that was fast, great job! BTW, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FLC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Criteria includes" => "Criteria include"
• "Sportsmanship is a drivers' relationship" => "Sportsmanship is a driver's relationship"
• "The award established before" => "The award was established before"
• I don't understand what the "status" column represents. What do values such as "contact", "header", "rod", etc mean?
  • I've added a abbr template that hopefully better explains its meaning. The above values are the reasons why the driver did not finish the race EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Amendments to the list have been made based on the above points and have replied to one point EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 12:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of songs recorded by Bebe Rexha. Cut from the same cloth of songwriter-turned-singer as Julia Michaels, Rexha penned hits like "The Monster" by Eminem and Rihanna and then went on to pursue a lengthy career as a recording artist. Unfortunately, the most promo she received in recent times was when someone threw a phone at her... Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 12:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "American singer and songwriter Bebe Rexha has recorded songs for three studio albums and three extended plays (EP)." - considering that there's so many more tracks on the list than just those on those six projects, I'd be tempted to say "American singer and songwriter Bebe Rexha has recorded songs for three studio albums and three extended plays (EP) as well as various soundtracks and collaborative projects"
• "In 2017, Rexha released two EPs which included her collaborations with hip hop artists. All Your Fault: Pt. 1 featured G-Eazy and Ty Dolla Sign, and All Your Fault: Pt. 2 featured Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz, Lil Wayne, Kranium, and Florida Georgia Line." - this makes it sounds a bit like FGL are a hip-hop act. Maybe "In 2017, Rexha released two EPs which included her collaborations with hip hop artists. All Your Fault: Pt. 1 featured G-Eazy and Ty Dolla Sign, and All Your Fault: Pt. 2 featured Gucci Mane, 2 Chainz, Lil Wayne and Kranium, as well as country duo Florida Georgia Line."
• Could maybe mention that "Meant to Be" spent a record-breaking (and frankly ludicrous :-) ) 50 consecutive weeks at number one on Hot Country Songs
• "She featured on The Chainsmokers' single" => "She featured on the Chainsmokers' single" (per MOS:THEBAND)
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk)

• Done! Thank you so much for the comments. The one about the Hot Country Songs chart reminded me of some similar achievements for "I'm Good" which I should have probably included here.--NØ 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "She learnt ...": I think learnt is more common in British English, whereas learned tends to be used in American English. As she is an American performer, I thought you may prefer to go with American English.
• Some other song lists highlight when a song was not written by the artist in question. See, for example, list of songs recorded by the Beatles, George Harrison or David Bowie. I do not think this is at all a requirement, but it is something to consider.
• Rather than make you jump through the hoops, I made a few smaller edits. Please make sure you do not object to anything there. Anyway, those are the only issues I have. Tkbrett (✉) 14:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the copyedits. All looks good! I switched to "learned". I think it's notable to highlight when the artists you mention did not write their own songs considering they did write most of them alone. In the case of Rexha, however, she hasn't written a single song alone and uses at least three co-writers on most of them so it is less noteworthy.--NØ 14:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you mean, that is fair. I am happy to support this list. Tkbrett (✉) 14:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Link checker shows no issues
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another list of monkeys: platyrrhines, or "New World monkeys", #5 in the order Primates and #34 overall for mammals. This took a while; the last couple of lists were 14 and 28 species, but this one is a much larger 160. Turns out South America is filled with a wide variety of little monkeys! Platyrrhini is a "parvorder", containing one extant superfamily Ceboidea, itself containing five families, so as per prior FLCs the list is named after the largest grouping that only contains these monkeys. Unlike the giant eyes of the Asian monkeys, these guys have long arms and tails—and for the Emperor tamarin, a long mustache. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

• The cladogram is getting pushed down below the genus list, could it be adjusted so it is right beside the list instead?

• Done, it had been too wide but I forgot to revert that when I condensed it.

• Eastern pygmy marmoset's diet is missing a citation. And the IUCN has a range map for it.

• Cite added

• The western pygmy marmoset's IUCN ref links to the eastern pygmey marmoset's IUCN page.

• Fixed, good catch

• Consider setting the default state for the Humboldt's white-fronted capuchin subspecies list to collapsed.

• Done

• Golden-bellied capuchin size is missing a citation.

• Done

• Caqueta titi monkey has an image in its article.

• It wasn't free use, but AryKun just fixed it for both - thanks!

• The IUCN has range maps for Toppin's titi monkey, Urubamba brown titi monkey, Vieira's tit monkey, reddish-brown bearded saki, burnished saki, Cazuza's saki, equatorial saki, golden-faced saki, hairy saki, Isabel's saki, Miller's saki, Napo saki, and Vanzolini's white-faced saki.

• Yeah, I don't have an easy way to make maps based on the IUCN's, and as far as I can see I can't just take a cropped screenshot of the site for copyright reasons as it's not actually public domain, so I haven't been doing that for any of these lists.

That's the first pass. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilverTiger12: Thanks for reviewing, responded inline. --PresN 14:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's ways to request maps be made, but that's a few too many to hold up an FLC for. Support, with the hope that maps eventually do get added. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

• Callicebus baptista.jpg needs a PD-US tag.
• Leontocebus cruzlimai.png needs a PD-US tag and should be cropped down as it currently has three species.
• Callicebus cinerascens.png has a dubious source currently, but it appears to be from here and so needs both PD tags.
• Pithecia aequatorialis 1775.jpg needs a PD-US tag.
• Pithecia hirsuta.jpg needs a PD-US tag.
• The marmoset illustrations seem to be extracted from here, there's illustrations for another couple of species you might want to check out.
• Otherwise a support on prose from me, just needs these things fixed. AryKun (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: PD-US tags all added, and Callicebus cinerascens.png source fixed. The unused illustrations in that paper don't seem to line up with the marmosets missing images, unless I'm not seeing it- emiliae and argentatus have photos. --PresN 02:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass image review. I’ve cropped the cruzlimai photo to avoid readers confusing it with one of the other species in that photo; no other concerns. Great work! AryKun (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reliability and formatting of the cites look okay throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to several animated accolades FLs, this one is deserved to be nominated as well. I expanded the table in a thorough way. Chompy Ace 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "based on the 2003 book of the same name by Cressida Cowell, produced by DreamWorks Animation and distributed by Paramount Pictures" - as this could (theoretically) be interpreted as meaning that it was the book that was produced by Dreamworks, etc, I would suggest changing it to "based on the 2003 book of the same name by Cressida Cowell; the film was produced by DreamWorks Animation and distributed by Paramount Pictures"
• That's it, I think. Not much to pick up on, as ever with your excellent lists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 04:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I also got nothing, very nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Update infobox totals for Houston Film Critics and International Film Music Critics
• There are four occurrences of "How To Train..." instead of "How to Train..." in the lead (plus one in the hidden table header)
• "nominations for Academy Award for Best Animated Feature" – remove "Academy Award for", as it's redundant
• Missing an Annie nom for storyboarding
• Note the tie at the Venice Film Festival with Avatar

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, done. Chompy Ace 06:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nice work as usual. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review - Reference formatting and reliability look up to scratch to my eyes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The lead photo has an appropriate free license, image and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Knives Out's accolades list is far too short to split, this one is longer than the original one and eligible to warrant it as a standalone one, so I will nominate this list. Chompy Ace 06:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - try as I might, I couldn't pick up anything to comment on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• "Society of Composers & Lyricists Awards" is listed in the infobox but not in the table.
• In the infobox "St. Louis Film Critics Association Awards" is listed as an award, but in the table, the same award is listed as "St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards". Make it consistent.
• In the table "St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards" has four wins listed, but in the infobox it mentions only 2 wins.
• In the table change number of wins to 36 and nominations to 96.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 07:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 21:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Flawless. --TheUzbek (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout the list of cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The collage in the lead has images with appropriate licensing, caption and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here is #37 in this series. Quite a few tracks here that still, 40+ years on, are guaranteed to fill the dancefloor at any wedding reception or Christmas party. Oh, and some weirdness from P-Funk. Feedback as every will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• successful musicians of all time -- might be worth linking to List of best-selling music artists
• was a major national and international success -- maybe "achieved worldwide success" instead?
• In the table, Cheryl Lynn should be sorted under "L"
• That's all I have. Another solid work! Pseud 14 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. I'm a bit hesitant to describe "Ring My Bell" as a "worldwide success" as that (to me at least) carries an implication that is was a massive hit in almost every country on Earth and I'm not sure I can source that. I've done the other two, though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the explanation, all good then. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Prince had his first soul number one in 1979. He would go on to be regarded as one of the greatest musicians of his generation. - never a fan of using would for things that could be easily phrased in past tense, WP:INTOTHEWOULDS and whatnot
• Remove billboard.com from the title of ref 17

ChrisTheDude, all done, nice job as always MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - pass: File:Nobel Peace Price Concert 2009 Donna Summer1 cropped.jpg seems to originate from this Commons image and I see no good reason to believe the uploader is not the author. The Flickr link for the Prince image does not work; it seems to have been changed to all rights reserved a few years later but was available under the cc license in 2008, which I believe cannot be revoked. The Flickr link for the MJ image doesn't work either but the archives prove it was made available under the stated license.--NØ 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of black music and since 2005 has been published as Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs." - I would suggest commas before and after "and since 2005"
• "African American-oriented genres" and "black music" link to the same article in pretty close proximity.
• "The singer had previously achieved several soul number ones with his brothers as the Jackson 5, and had charted sporadically in his own right since 1971, but did not reach the top spot as a soloist until 1979." - I believe the comma right after "the Jackson 5" should be removed
• "Jackson would go on to become one of the most successful musicians of all time, selling hundreds of millions of records, and be regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time" - Nitpicky but maybe "ever" during the second usage to avoid repetition? :-)
• "Ward's single "Ring My Bell" was a national and international success" - Doesn't "international" usually encompass national as well? "Global" might also be a concise way of saying both
• Chaka's first mention is just her first name and the following sentence uses "Vocalist Chaka Khan", when the first mention should probably be more descriptive.
• That's it!--NØ 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MaranoFan - thanks for your review. As per above, I'm reluctant to say "Ring My Bell" was a global success as that implied it topped charts literally all over the world, so I just went with "international". And the reason why Chaka Khan was referred to by her forename only was because that's how the single was credited. I have (hopefully) found a way round this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--NØ 12:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Source review, approved. --TheUzbek (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability looks fine across the board. The only minor formatting nit-pick I have is that a couple of the book references need en dashes for the year ranges in their titles. Other than that, formatting looks okay as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: Fixed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York University was founded in 1831 and has had 17 permanent presidents. A fairly short article, this lists all of them. I based this on List of presidents of Georgetown University, which I had promoted to FL status. Ergo Sum 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude

• Mills seems to be the first female president - worth a mention if you can source it
  • Added a blurb about that. Ergo Sum 15:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • unfortunately that sentence now doesn't make grammatical sense........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoops, fixed now. Ergo Sum 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Any chance the photo captions could be made more informative than just the person's name?
  • I was trying to keep the captions minimal, since the list really should be predominant. I used the Georgetown presidents list as a template for the image captions. I'm not sure what else the captions would say that the reader might find useful, as opposed to clicking on the subject's article link and reading further there. Ergo Sum 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In Bennett's note you use a full stop to separate two factoids, whereas everywhere else you use a semi-colon
  • I did that to separate the statement about his leadership of NYU from the statement about his other positions. Also borrowed from the Georgetown presidents list. Ergo Sum 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• I don't love the current division of the lead- I think the fourth para could be merged with the third, and the third could even be merged with the second. Your choice though
  • I've merged the third and fourth paragraphs. Those pertain to rather transient facts, while the second paragraph is about facts that are structural and unlikely to change. Ergo Sum 15:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The president recommends persons to fill -persons? No, people
  • I tend to like the distinction of "persons" is for multiple individuals separately and "people" is for multiple individuals collectively, but I realize "persons" is less common. I've changed it. Ergo Sum 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The tooltext for Ref. should just say "Reference" since "Ref." insinuates singularity
  • That is the automatic output of the template and contemplates the addition of future references. Ergo Sum 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4 needs a website/work
  • Done. Ergo Sum 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, all done, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very nice job. If you get time, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to link "residence"?
  • I'd like to keep the link to Official residence and this piped link is the only way I could think of doing it. Ergo Sum 19:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the empty "notes", I'll suggest just placing a em-dash: —, if you wish.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Chris that the captions should be a bit more than just the link to main article.
  • I've added the ordinal of their presidency to each caption. Ergo Sum 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an issue, but I would have used "New York University" as the Publisher instead of Website.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Same for "ProPublica". Our article does not italicize it, we should really be using is in the "publisher" parameter. Kindly check this for other references as well.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• " FRELINGHUYSEN, Theodore" - Why capitalization. Same with "CROSBY". Check for others as well. Even if the source uses Capitalization, there is no good reason for us to be using it.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "United States Department of Energy" could be linked
  • Done. Ergo Sum 19:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine on readability for FLC. No spot checks performed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick skim of this article, and don't plan at the moment to do a full review (of the type that would lead to a support or oppose). But overall, it looks in quite good shape. The only two comments I have are:

• I'd recommend using {{ref begin}} and {{ref end}} tags for the sources section.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For the presidents, I think it might be helpful to list their academic specialization (e.g. chemistry, international relations, art history, etc.).
  • The issue is that most of the presidents, especially the early ones, either were not academics or if they did, they had no academic speciality or I cannot find a source that says what that specialty was. Ergo Sum 18:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All four of the photos used in the article have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is #8 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. Formatting is based off of past successful featured lists from the series. As always, I will do my best to respond and address issues as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Nowhere in the lead is "scoring leader" defined- this is likely very simple, but I'm not sure if it means something else (I have no AmE football knowledge); perhaps define it somewhere
• As above, I'm struggling to understand something- all the ways to score points that you described in para 1 seem to be done by the team, but the list only describes individuals having points. What's going on here?

Hey man im josh, I see no other issues- again, apologize for my lack of knowledge on the subject! Excellent work on the tables! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MyCatIsAChonk, thank you for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe I've better defined who the scoring leader is and how that's determined. The wording can be a little clunky when trying to describe these concepts, so please do tell me if it's not clear enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - much better! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• I concur with MyCatIsAChonk - the lead would benefit from clarification that in the case of a touchdown, the player scoring it is credited with the points, in the case of a kicking player the kicker is credited with the points..........are those the only options? I confess my knowledge of American football is not that wonderful either..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also striking that it always used to be non-kickers who were the leaders and now it's pretty much kickers all the way. Is there a reason why the game has evolved in this way that could (if appropriately sourced) be mentioned in the lead? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey @ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for the feedback. I've made some changes that I hope address your concerns. Kicking and scoring a touchdown are the primary ways of scoring, with a safety being the only other way to score, though these are not common.

The positional changes over time are more to do with the fact that positions in football were often not well defined early on in the league's history. As time went on, teams began to have dedicated, specialized placekickers, whereas before then the person who kicked field goals would usually be someone who played a different position on the team. In fact, if I were to do a full break down of how each player scored their points, you would find that a lot of the early "non-kickers" were actually kicking in addition to their regular duties. Don Hutson, the player who led the league in five consecutive seasons, has actually scored by rushing, receiving, returning interceptions, kicking, AND causing a safety! You can see this at the scoring summary section of this page. This means that Hutson scored in all 3 phases of football (offense, defense, and special teams), which would be unheard of nowadays. In short though, it's been the evolution of the game to have people become more specialized in positions instead of playing multiples like Don Hutson did. I considered trying to explain this in the lead, but I felt as though when working on it that it ended up being too heavily based on synthesis. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

• "A player is not credited with points scored if they pass for a touchdown." - I don't see this mentioned in NFL/Pro Football HOF.
• I think the NFL reference should come after the "For statistical purposes" sentence as it's verified there.
• "before being absorbed into the NFL in 1970" - needs a source to show that in 1970, the AFL was merged into the NFL.
• Dutch Clark was a Tailback.
• There's no position for Jack Manders's 1934 season at his Pro Football Reference source. Extra source needed.
• Position is missing at Don Hutson's 1942 season at PFR. Extra source needed.
• Elroy Hirsch played as an End in 1951.
• Lou Groza was a Tackle in 1957.
• Don Chandler was Punter in 1963.
• 1967 Cardinals should be linked to the NFL team at 1967 St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) season.
• Mason Crosby is no longer with the Packers, so he doesn't need to be shaded in 2007 as active.
• Jason Myers has 143 points in 2022.
• "Gostkowski also has the second longest streak of consecutive seasons" - he's tied for second (as Cappelletti had 4 back to back season records as well). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback @MrLinkinPark333. Some of the issues stemmed from my thought process changing from when I started out and I thought I had cleaned all of that up, but apparently not. I believe I’ve addressed and implemented all of your suggestions with a single exceptions.

• "A player is not credited with points scored if they pass for a touchdown." - I don't see this mentioned in NFL/Pro Football HOF.

• The passer is not the player who scores the touchdown, the receiver is the one who does so, which is why I added the clarification. We also wouldn't credit the holder on a field goal with points scored for a similar reason. After thinking about it, I've actually removed this line because I don't think the clarification is necessary.

I'm glad these were caught but I do feel embarassed there were this many things to catch. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's better to catch them now instead of having them missed. The remaining points above that haven't been resolved are: Jack Manders's 1934 position needs extra source, and the "For statistical purposes" could be cited with the NFL source. Thank you for the quick changes :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: in case you haven't seen my comment above. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MrLinkinPark333: I did not actually see your comment and then I was on vacation during the time of your last ping. While I know Twitter is not a reliable source, I wanted to share this tweet with you to help explain the situation. I did find the paper on Newspapers.com and I thought I had it in my bookmarks, but apparently not. The gist of what I found was that he was a halfback (note that the article in that tweet mentions room in the backfield for him) but that he also had kicking duties and, because of his record breaking season and his success, they did not want to not give him some type of All-Pro credit. So, because of the All-Pro designation and the lack of placekicker as a designated position until quite some time later, it creates a bit of confusion. Does this help to clear it up? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With those articles, those articles doesn't specifically say he was a halfback. As the sources say he was a placekicker in 1934, I think it'd be better to cite the newspaper (and not the twitter post) that say he was a placekicker for now. If you happen to see a source that says he was a halfback in 1934, you could add or swap out the source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: It specifically mentions him as being part of the backfield in that link. As mentioned, placekicker was not a designated position at the time and "Honor man" is not an acceptable position to list either. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case, I think you should either need a source that specifically mentions he was a halfback in 1934 (doesn't have to be the one mentioned from twitter) or remove the position for 1934. This is currently original research as the halfback isn't the only offensive backfield position. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: His whole career he was designated as a fullback or a halfback, as evidenced by the already included reference. It's very clearly not original research. Never the less, I have added an additional newspaper reference that refers to him as a halfback. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extra citation! The only other thing is the "For statistical purposes" sentences could be cited with the NFL citation, then you're all set for verification check. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: There's nothing to cite, as it's not even explained in most situations because it usually goes without saying. Players in the NFL do not get points for an assist (passing the ball to a player who crosses into the end zone). I even reached out to Pro-football-reference.com about this and they thought a clarification on this point was unnecessary. The typical definition is "Total points scored by all means" and when you go to the Scoring Summary table on a page, such as this one, you can see that passing touchdowns are not listed anywhere. This is because, as mentioned, the person who assists in scoring the points is not the person actually scoring said points. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this part could be cited as one of your citations, NFL operations, as all of this verified in terms of the types of points. Since this is only mentioned in the lead, I thought that reusing the citation here would be helpful. However, as these types of points are already cited earlier in the paragraph, the citation may not be needed to be reused here. In this case, I don't mind skipping over this point. As that was the last thing leftover from above, I'll give this a support. Thank you for working on the remaining points quickly! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – Appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text are included with all images used in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the gymnosperms, including the conifers. Quite a bit shorter than my series on flowering plant families ... this is just one page, and just 12 rows of families. As always, a list of the image licenses is on the talk page, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I tried really hard but found nothing to quibble about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - agree with Chris, impressive work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks x2. (But damn, now I have to get started on the next list.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

I don't do plants... I don't do plants... oh, what am I saying. I like taxonomy lists.

• Pass source review: Earwig detected no copyvio, and all the sources used are good. I didn't check the code behind the citations, though, because I don't have experience with sfn style.
• In the lede: Why do you give the giant redwood's common name in parentheses, but not the coastal redwood's? I suggest Sequoiadendron giganteum, the giant redwood, is the largest tree in the world, and Sequoia sempervirens, the coastal redwood, is the tallest.
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk)
• The pine family is the main source of softwood timber, and is a significant source of paper pulp and turpentine.
  • I think I can get away with "The pine family is the main source of softwood timber, paper pulp and turpentine." There's a small chance that that has changed or will change; if so, we can always edit it. - Dank (push to talk)
• Why don't you link directly to Baltic amber? I.e. "Amber from around the Baltic Sea..."
  • Now that I've looked into it, I deleted the sentence. Baltic amber says, among other things: "Baltic amber formerly included amber from the Bitterfeld brown coal mines in Saxony (Eastern Germany). ... Other sources of Baltic amber have been listed as coming from Poland and Russia." Not everyone agrees where it came from, or that it all originated from the umbrella-pine family. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like this second lede paragraph needs some kind of opening sentence instead of jumping straight to the fun facts.
  • I moved two sentences around and did some minor copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
• Is Gnetum edule supposed to be a redlink?
  • Yes, red links are not uncommon in these plant family lists ... the most illustrative images from Commons don't necessarily match up with Wikipedia's species articles, but TPTB tell me that "all species are notable". After this list, I'm switching to species lists, which should mean fewer red links. - Dank (push to talk)

That's all from me. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love the lead image; promoting. --PresN 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about the players who were selected in the 2012 NBA draft and the order in which they were selected. I started working on this a month ago to clean the article up, and I hope it's ready to become a featured list now. I used 2003 NBA draft as a guide since not many NBA drafts are currently FLs. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• What's actually sourcing the draft selections and notable undrafted players tables? Neither has any references at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a ref for the selections. As for the undrafted players, the list is directly from List of National Basketball Association undrafted players, it appears. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It still needs sourcing in this article (not least because it isn't sourced in the other article either......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I just removed the section for now. Maybe in the future someone will come across good sources with some of the players listed. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to finish adding refs for the section in the next day or 2. -- ZooBlazer^talk 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude The section is fully cited now. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; 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. ! style="width:1%;"| Round becomes !scope=col style="width:1%;"| Round. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |align=center| 1 becomes !scope=row align=center| 1 (Looks like the "pick" column should be the header/primary, as its unique to each row). 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. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clear directions @PresN. Can you take a look to see if I did it correctly?

  Also, for the !scope=row, do I do it for each individual "pick"? For now I just did it for the first pick just to see if I did it correctly. -- ZooBlazer^talk 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, each "pick", and you did it correctly. --PresN 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN I've made the changes to all tables except the draft lottery one because I'm not the best with tables and it's a different style than the others. I'm not sure where to add everything from your suggestions for that one. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did it for you, the table code was all jumbled together so I smoothed it out and added the accessibility bits. --PresN 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN Thank you! -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close

I don't know how many votes on average makes it ready to close, but are 3 supports good enough to get your vote one way or another? ZooBlazer 06:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• the same conference, the Southeastern Conference - "the Southeastern Conference" should be in parenthesis, as the (Kentucky) is in parenthesis too
• The draft selections and transactions, including trades involving picks on draft night or at a previous time. - this is an incomplete sentence, and I'm not entirely sure what it means
• The first 14 picks in the draft belong to teams that miss the playoffs; the order was determined through a lottery. The lottery determined the three teams that will obtain the first three picks on the draft. The remaining first-round picks and the second-round picks were assigned to teams in reverse order of their win–loss record in the previous season. - citation needed
• The Charlotte Bobcats, who had the worst record and the biggest chance to win the lottery, won the second overall pick. - citation needed
• As of 2011, the basic eligibility rules for the draft are listed below. - bring up to date; if this is talking about the pasty, say "In 2011, the basic..."
• U.S. players who were at least one year removed from their high school graduation and have played minor-league basketball with a team outside the NBA are also automatically eligible. - cn
• A player who has hired an agent will forfeit his remaining college eligibility, regardless of whether he is drafted. Also, while the CBA allows a player to withdraw from the draft twice, the NCAA mandates that a player who has declared twice loses his college eligibility. - cn

ZooBlazer, got nothing else, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk I think I've addressed everything. Ref #76 should now cover the last 2 CNs you mentioned. -- ZooBlazer^talk 14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Most of paragraph 2 of the lead seems to be unsourced
• "Of the players drafted, 30 are forwards, 21 are guards, and 9 are centers." - I would change this to the past tense, as I would imagine a substantial number of these players have now retired
• "The draft selections and transactions. Transactions consist of trades involving picks made on draft night or on a previous date." - is this needed? If it is, the first bit should be re-written to be a proper sentence
• "The lottery determined the three teams that will obtain the first three picks on the draft." - not appropriate to use the future tense given that we are talking about a draft which took place more than a decade ago
• "The New Orleans Hornets won the rights to the first overall selection with a 13.7% chance to win" - why did they have this very specific percentage chance to win? I don't understand this.
• In fact I don't understand this whole section. What are "lottery chances"? Why Houston only have a chance of getting the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 14th picks?
• "On May 3, 2012, the league announced a list of 67 early entry candidates which consists of" => "On May 3, 2012, the league announced a list of 67 early entry candidates which consisted of"
• "leaving 49 collegiate players and 7 international players" - there are 8 players in the "international players" table.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I've addressed everything you've mentioned. Hopefully all the lottery confusion is cleared up now, but let me know if something is still unclear. -- ZooBlazer^talk 18:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for adding explanation to the lottery section but (and sorry if I am being unbelievably dumb) I still don't get parts of it. If the picks past the fourth are simply assigned to teams in reverse order of their win–loss record in the previous season, why do four teams apparently have a chance to gain each? How could Charlotte have had the highest chance of gaining pick four when they had already received pick two? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude So because the lottery only determines the top 3 picks, technically every team has a chance to drop up to 3 spots if 3 teams behind them jump up. Since teams 2-4 have the biggest odds to win the first pick/jump into the top 3 other than Charlotte, their combined odds are why Charlotte has the highest chance to drop to #4. They only had a 25% chance to win, which means a 75% chance to not win.

  I hope that helps. I know it's a confusing thing. I've never actually tried explaining it until now because I've never fully understood it, but working on this article has helped. Since 2019 the lottery changed the rules and the top 4 teams are selected in the lottery, with the top 3 worst records having the same odds to win, so finding sources for the old rules was harder than expected. -- ZooBlazer^talk 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Add alt text to all images.
• Ref 1 requires a subscription, so add |url-access=subscription
• Ref 33 is the author Matt Steinmetz. If so add a link.
• In the first table Damian Lillard there is "*~" but the background is only denoting the "*". Add both colors to the background.

-- EN-Jungwon 15:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon Done. Although the last one with the table I don't think I can change. From everything I've seen with tables like that for sports, both symbols are added but, the color used is whichever is the higher accomplishment. Unless you know how to make it half and half of both colors? ZooBlazer 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added both colors. If you feel that it's not necessary then feel free to revert. Support -- EN-Jungwon 05:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon Works for me. Thanks! ZooBlazer 05:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as it stands now I opposite this nom

Where is the sources for the "Draft lottery" table and "College underclassmen", "International players" and "Invited attendees" headings? As it stands now its quite difficult for the reader to know what references what. Maybe add a "Ref." column to the tables like this one: Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam? I mean, this is Wikipedia. Its even more important that we show transparently what references what statement. --TheUzbek (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek I added a ref for the lottery odds, but the other sections are all cited clearly I feel in the prose of those sections. ZooBlazer 21:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is one (recent) oppose, I'm going to go ahead and promote. I read through the list, and I found it pretty clear in the sections mentioned that the reference in the text contained the data that was then presented in a list/table, without it being repeated in a ref. column or similar. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 03:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the culmination of many years of work bringing all the Packers president articles up to WP:GA quality (only missing John Jones and this FLC to round out a featured topic). The Packers have a unique ownership structure unlike any NFL team. They are led by a Board of Directors, with the president being elected and acting as a team owner. In the 100+ year history of the team, there have been 11 of these presidents. Thank you for your time reviewing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Image caption should be "Mark Murphy, the Packers' current president"
• "which mandate no more than 25 people can" => "which mandate that no more than 25 people can"
• "the Packers ownership structure was grandfathered" => "the Packers' ownership structure was grandfathered"
• "They represent the organization on NFL committees [...] and generally appears" - subject changes from plural to singular mid-sentence
• "Eight of the eleven presidents have been" => "Eight of the eleven presidents had been"
• "prior to their tenure and include" => "prior to their tenure; these include"
• "The Packers first president," => "The Packers' first president,"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, all changes have been made, thanks for your review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• after a public offering of stock raised $5,000. - link stock, as I'm not entirely sure what this means; I'd assume company stock, but I'm no sports aficionado
• after it was in receivership for a number of years - what number of years?
• I feel like the first para of the lead would be better split into two, the first going up until It was later reorganized into its current form, known as the Green Bay Packers, Inc., in 1935 after it was in receivership for a number of years and the second starting with The executive committee, which is elected from the board members, includes three members at-large, a secretary, treasurer, vice president, and president; the first section introduced the subject and details the Packers' history, and the second details the role of the president- your choice to implement, though
• The "Refs" column does not need to be divided into multiple cells, since they all use the same citation; see the Emmys section of List of awards and nominations received by Last Week Tonight with John Oliver for example
• Ref 2's title does not need the site directory; just the title of the page ("Birth of a Team & a Legend") is satisfactory
• Some citations to Packers.com list the website as "Packers.com" or as "Green Bay Packers, Inc."; choose one and make them all the same for consistency

Gonzo_fan2007, all done, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MyCatIsAChonk I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review and support! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Is there a standard for whether we should list 2008–Present or 2008–present in lists like these? Maybe it's because of all the player infoboxes I look at, but seeing it capitalized caught my eye.
  • I have no preference *shrug* I'm fine going lowercase. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Team records accurate as of the end of Week 8 of the 2023 NFL season – Week should be lowercased, as it's not a proper name. Should also be a period at the end of the sentence.
  • Sources capitalize the week. See here, here and here. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gonzo fan2007: I understand that some sources do capitalize "week" when referring to the weeks of the NFL season, but I also recognize that the media that covers the NFL is inconsistent on this. I also feel it relevant to mention that just because some people do capitalize it, it does not necessarily make it a proper name. With that said, I'm not going to fight for it to be lowercased because I'm not sure we've actually come to a consensus on this issue at WP:NFL. It may be worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters at some point just to get some consistency in the mix. Heck, even the season articles, such as 2023 NFL season, aren't consistent on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll bring it up at WT:NFL. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• References all look good, in that the formatting is consistent and the sources are appropriately reliable for the information being referenced.
• Image licensing looks good
• Image has appropriate alt text
  • Hey man im josh, responses above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and image check passed. Great job Gonzo_fan2007, even if you are a Packers fan! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My points have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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