Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2024

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chile has 7 WHS, including Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and 17 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for New Zealand is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources fall quite squarely into the same template as similar lists such as List of World Heritage Sites in Argentina, so I think we've got good sourcing here. Sources are consistently formatted and cited, and there are no statements that appear to be uncited. Everything in the sources checks out to their descriptions and data. I think we're good to go here; Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since I know image reviews can take some time;

• All images are either public domain or correctly licensed CC; and of course suitable for the topic. They also have alt-text, yay! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region, in 2021. comma not needed
• What is the World Heritage Committee? This should be elaborated a bit.
• around 300 by a group not clear that you mean a year by "300". 300 AD? The 4th century?
• The Jesuits arrived to the islands in the early --> "came to the islands"
• and Hippidion. as well as still existing species such as guanaco.-->{{tq|and Hippidion, as well as still existing species, such as guanaco.
• a port town that made fortune in the 19th century add "a" or "its" before "fortune"
• pictured.} remove stray bracket

That is all I got. Nice work Tone! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Fixed all. I linked the WHC, that should work. Tone 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• nit: Chile has 17 properties on its tentative list. --> Chile has 17 sites on its tentative list.. "Properties" seems to imply they're each owned by one group (such as one plot of land), but I don't know that it adequately describes national parks or a set of caves.
• Tarapaca -> Tarapacá
• They build adobe villages -> They built adobe villages

Great list Tone! Brindille1 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all, thanks! Tone 08:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brindille1 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brindille1 just a friendly reminder to place your comments under 4-level headings. Three level headings mess up the TOC. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another BC municipalities list that I have done work on. I hope you enjoy. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image could be made larger
• "Towns, cities, districts and villages in British Columbia are referred to as municipalities and all are included in local governments in the province, which may be incorporated under the Local Governance Act of 2015." - this sentence is confusing - what does the "which may be" refer to? The province? The local governments?
• "In order for a municipality in British Columbia to be labelled as a town" - "labelled" implies something that people just informally call something. I would use a more formal verb such as "categorized"
• "Although the population of Port McNeill fall below this threshold, and all the populations except for Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Golden and Gibsons go above this threshold, they are still categorized as towns" - I would redo this whole bit as "Although the population of Port McNeill falls below this threshold, it is still categorized as a town, as are nine settlements with populations greater than 5,000."
• " while the province's newest town is View Royal on December 5, 1988" => " while the province's newest town is View Royal, which incorporated on December 5, 1988"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm judging things here by the basis of List of cities in New Brunswick, a recently promoted and similar FL; it appears you based the body off of this, good choice.

• Optional: Add the variable "abbr=on" to your convert template in the lede; with the large numbers already, we gotta do what we can to shorten it.

  done

• You should cite every instance of the regional districts in the list; because the list can be rearranged by the reader, "first usage" doesn't really apply.\

  done

• I would take a leaf (heh) from the New Brunswick article and put the whole population through density columns under a first order "2021 Census of Population" column. Makes the population density unambiguous.

  done

• Give units for the population density. 1,103.2 per what?

  km². clarified.

• Are there any sources that talk about the structure of local governments for towns? Do they have mayors, councils, what? Those would be good to include for context.

  all municipalities have councils.

• Like in the New Brunswick article, you should also have a column for the province as a whole so you can see what percentage of people live in a town (I assume a very small number here.)

  done.

• Former town section looks good.
• The one image is relevant and correctly formatted.
• Were any of these settlements villages before they became towns? If so, which date does "Incorporation Date" reflect?

  The Incorporation Date reflects when the municipality got promoted to a town. clarified.

@CosXZ: That's my piece. Thank you for your good work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CosXZ This looks great! Support. Optional, but it could be good to indicate if a settlement was previously a village or unincorporated before it became a town. maybe just adding (from village) in parentheses after the date? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and second sentences should be flipped. The second sentence lists the topic of the article pretty directly.
• I would also drop the "As of 2024", which seems silly for something that doesn't really change very often (the last one was in 1988)
• became a town on October 31, 1987[7] and then amalgamated with the Northern Rockies Regional District on February 6, 2009 to you need commas after each year in this sentence
• Is there a reason to use amalgamated instead of a more common English like "combined"?
• In the table, text should either be centered or left justified, but definitely not right justified
• Source review:
  • Refs 2, 4 and 5 all cite the Government of BC. Ref 4 has this italicized, while the others dont.
  • Ref 9 is a dead link for me
  • In the table, where is the "Regional district" information sourced from? I can't find it in Ref 3
  • All other spot checks look good.

CosXZ, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (source review passed) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being repetitive with this comment, but isn't this page a fork of List of municipalities in British Columbia? In that the table is entirely a subset of the table from there? Mattximus (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the table styled like List of cities in New Brunswick. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th FL nom and the 6th in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and history sections, cleaned up clutter from the table, and brought the table accessibility to FL-standards. Similar, recent FL: Madhya Pradesh -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. 3 doesn't have a website parameter and Ref. 25 is broken. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sgubaldo: Fixed both issues. Thanks for pointing them out. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite busy this week, but I'll try do a full review. Ping if I haven't said anything by Friday. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink The Times of India for Ref. 6
• Ref. 5 and 25 has no website or publisher?
• Refs. 10 and 14 have had their publisher accidentally written into the title parameter.
• Why are you using term_length in the infobox rather than term_limit like with the Madhya Pradesh list?
• Capitalise 'North India' in the first line?

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo: You're right: term limit is more accurate than term length. Fixed that and the rest that you pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ref. 1 should use |website= rather than |publisher= for India Today, but other than that, support. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of the lead needs inline citations.
• Are there no Scheduled Tribes in the Punjab Legislative Assembly? If so, state that definitively.
• I would change the links to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the lead and the table to the following:
  • In the lead, change Scheduled Castes (SC) (and Scheduled Tribes (ST)) to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) (note the change in linking and punctuation)
  • In the Legend for the table, change Scheduled Castes to Scheduled Castes (note the more specific location on the link)

Nice work. That's all I got MPGuy2824. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Table legend change: I've added more specific anchors to the definitions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. I've fixed these in the previous FLs too.
• Lead paragraph needing citations: I've added a couple and I think the rest of the statements aren't as challenge-worthy, but I'm happy to look for refs if you disagree with that.
• Fixed the rest.

Thanks for the review, Gonzo fan2007. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Ref #4 is the only one that writes out the website as a url. Recommend just changing is to IndiaSpend.
• Ref #4 is also missing its author.
• Ref #14 says "1962" but should be "1972"
• It appears the Election Commission of India pages are all dead. Please check them all and change all to |url-status=dead.
• Why does the last sentence of the lead need 3 sources?
• Everything else appears consistently formatted.
• All sources appear reliable for what is being sorted.
• Spot checks: all spot checks came back good to go.

MPGuy2824, I figured I'd do your source review too. Let me know when you have addressed everything. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears the Election Commission of India pages are all dead. They aren't dead, but the ECI in its infinite wisdom has geo-fenced them. I have been using "|url-access=limited" to signify this, but if there is a better way, please let me know.
• Why does the last sentence of the lead need 3 sources? - Removed one of the newspaper refs. Now one is a newspaper and the other is a primary source.
• I've fixed the rest of the issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MPGuy2824 If you make the url-status dead, than the archive links will show up first in the reference. The archive links seems to be working, so I would recommend that. See [4]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that I can access the urls in India, so they aren't exactly dead. I don't know how wide the geo-fencing is, but I've checked with an editor in Europe who can't access those urls. I think I'll start a thread on WT:FLC about this and see what others think. Lists that I've previously taken to FL (and future constituency lists) will also be affected. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  MPGuy2824, if you aren't expecting these pages to change, then having the archive link come first makes verification the easiest for the largest amount of people. That said, I won't have this hold up the FLC review and will allow the other discussion go its course. I can verify the page, so its a Support from me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistent capitalisation of "Scheduled castes" and "Scheduled tribes" in the lead
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #5 and mammal list #46: Vespertilioninae. This list wore me out: I try to make it one list per family, but the parent family (Vespertilionidae) had so many bats that the page stopped rendering partway through. Even cutting it down to this subfamily is still pushing it, as with 278 species it's almost as big as the entire order of Carnivora, which was covered by the first ten lists in this series, and nearly 5% of all mammal species in one go. It's all done now, though, so here we are: nearly 300 tiny, tiny little bats. Really, what got me through it was the picture for the first bat: he's been captured by a giant, and he's so very mad about it. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on pretty slow wifi, so what I got when the page started loading was the alt text of the lede image, which is incredible. And the pallid bat image is, indeed, very cute. So smol, so angry. Anyway, I'll try to give a prose review of the top parts.

• A few extinct prehistoric molossid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Molossids? Huh?
• Considering your reported problem of page length, this rendered decently quickly for me on slow wifi. Good job!

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Whoops, fixed! --PresN 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the lead image could be made larger
• "Main article: Murininae" is randomly floating between two tables and doesn't look like it's meant to be there.......unless I am wrong......?
• That's it - amazing work. Your dedication to long and heavy-duty lists is to be admired! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Expanded and fixed, thanks! --PresN 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, that's a lot of bats!

Mainly cited to the IUCN red list, which seems like quite the reputable source (and match your previous FLs in this field). I'm going to have to assume good faith on All the Mammals, but I checked a dozen of the IUCN cites and they all checked out, as did the one Nowak cite and Ibanez et al. Sources are consistently formatted, and every entry has its own cite. I would personally put Ibanez et al. in the bibliography itself rather than in the citations, but its your list and consistency is what matters here. The uncited portions in the lede, conventions, and classification are supported by the sources in the tables themselves, so all is shipshape here.

Support, everything seems fine by me. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My only comment, not impacting my support, is that "regularly" and "also" in which regularly also eats small birds cancel each other out. I would just choose one.

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating this for FL since it's rejection several months ago. I have taken time to significantly improve it to fit the criteria, mostly taken from experience in my other successful nomination, and I believe it is now ready to reviewed again. TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• All images need alt texts.
• Please clarify that you've incorporated all the feedback from the last time this was nominated.
• I would remove the images from the Monarch columns. Its a bit distracting.
• Scopes need to be on the header cell. e.g. in the deputy heads table, the scope is present on the image cells. It should be on the number cell. Also, if the header cell spans multiple rows, then the scope should be "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I have addressed these comments. TheBritinator (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Liechtenstein. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that WP is inactive. TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The appointed head of government is typically the leader of the political party with the most seats in the Landtag or a coalition of parties, but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." - source for all this?
• "The title was changed to 'Governor'" - what was it before, then? You don't say......
• "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, yet is still counted as the second" - this doesn't really make sense as written. Change it to "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, but is counted only once"
• Any particular reason why the head of government table has the start and dates squished into one column and a duration column but the deputy heads table has the start and end dates in two separate columns and no duration column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually coincidentally fixed the second one earlier today while working on something else. I will get on the rest tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Feger's first row in the deputies table looks odd with the "duration" being half blank - is the 91 days only the time he served under Ospelt? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I merged it because he technically still had the role during his time as acting prime minister. TheBritinator (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to look at it this weekend. Ping if I haven't said anything by Wednesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

• Note a ('Defunct from 1936') probably needs a citation. Also, reading the article, it seems like it merged with a separate minor party. Perhaps this could be added to the note?
• "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of Prime Minister" ==> "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of the Prime Minister"?
• "The role originated as Landvogt when Michael Menzinger applied for the creation of the role in 1833, which served as the head of the district office, and was the first office-holder" ==> This is one sentence saying two different things at once; I also am not entirely clear if the role itself is what served as the head of the district office. If so, consider changing to something like: "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder."
• "... One of the cabinet ministers is appointed to this position by the prince of Liechtenstein upon the proposal of the Landtag of Liechtenstein." ==> Since this is the first time you're mentioning the prince and landtag in the body, you could probably wikilink both again?

Tables:

• Text and references are centered in the State Administrator table, but not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister ones.
• I'm not sure if it's a visual glitch or an issue with the table code, but the Josef Büchel box has some weird doubling of the lines.

Source Formatting:

• Ref. 1 doesn't comply with MOS:ALLCAPS
• Add an archive link for Ref. 2 and 3?
• Minor nitpick but some references have opaque names like :1 or :122, when it would be better to have more descriptive ones.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, removed the excessive capitalization. Will work on archiving later. TheBritinator (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo All comments have been addressed. However, I am having a bit of difficulty in getting the party colour bar to line up and can't seem to get it to work. Also, internet archive appears to be down again for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but do archive the sources when the IA is back online. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The incumbent Prime Minister is Daniel Risch since 25 March 2021" should say "has been", not "is".
• The image caption in the lead is fairly clunky. I don't know if bullet points are a great idea (open to being convinced), and most collages describe images in clockwise order to avoid having to say "Top left:" etc.
• The "parties" section is also a little jarring. I think it can either be converted into a paragraph of prose (e.g. listing number of PMs from each party and general trends) or omitted entirely, as at the list of US presidents, given that the parties are linked in the table. The footnote can be added to the first relevant entries in the table (e.g. Alfred Hilbe).
• Does this nomination still need a source review? I'd be willing to do that, but it would have to wait until the weekend or perhaps next week. Toadspike [Talk] 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes @Toadspike, it does still need a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toadspike For the second point I was replicating List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, which is a FL. TheBritinator (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm glad to see there's precedent, in that case I won't pursue this point further. Toadspike [Talk] 18:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over all of the comments provided by myself and others in this FLC and checked the list for appropriate fixes. I believe they have all been addressed and I support this FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the list is cited to source 5, which is reliable as a publication of the Landesarchiv.

• Source 5 does not mention some of the early acting governors/PMs or Michael Menzinger, doesn't list election dates, and doesn't have specific term start and end dates, only years. I will check the other sources for those later.
• It does list Prinz Karl as being "provisorisch" (temporary, acting) from 1918 to 1920 – any reason he isn't listed as such in the table?
• It lists acting PMs Feger and Gubelmann as being from the VP and FBP respectively – they are marked as "Independent" in the table.
• Otherwise, all PMs' start and end dates are verified.
• Source 5 lists Alfons Feger as being deputy PM three times and lists his total time in this post as 1922-1928. The table says that the post was vacant under Gubelmann in 1922 – this should say that Feger held the post during that time period. Also, his party is listed as VP in the source, but the table says that he's independent.
• The red bar showing that the deputy MP was from the VP has a small gap between Nigg and Büchel. Probably some table syntax issue. I think it stems from trying to overlap PM Frick's last few months in office with the new deputy.
• The remaining Deputy PMs also check out.

Source 1 is really interesting. It is, however, some kind of opinion containing proposed changes to the constitution of Liechtenstein, not actually the constitution itself. I appreciate the commentary where relevant (see below), but I am wondering if there's a better (unaltered, unannotated) version of the constitution you could cite for the uncontroversial stuff, like the first sentence.

• I noticed that the sentence Under this constitution, the eligibility for becoming head of government was changed to require residency in Liechtenstein. is inaccurate, since it implies that rule existed in 1921 when the constitution was ratified. The source says that the 1921 constitution required holders of several high offices to be "natives" of Liechtenstein (I'm pretty sure this means "born in Liechtenstein", like the "natural-born" requirement for the US presidency), and that in/after 1992 the Government held that the rule is unenforceable or similar.
• This source calls the "cabinet" the "Government". I prefer the term government – any reason why "cabinet" was chosen instead? (This is probably a COMMONNAME issue and I haven't looked into all the sources yet.)
• Otherwise the source backs up everything it's cited for.

The third sentence of the lead is uncited. I assume you have a cite floating around for that somewhere? Sources 2 and 3 do not back up the start of the second paragraph, which says "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder." It seems the sources may have been misread. Source 3 explains that the position of Landvogt existed from the 16th century until 1848, when it became the "Regierungsamt". Source 2 explains that Menzinger was the Landvogt from 1833 until his firing due to a financial scandal (sound familiar?) in 1861. The long sentence

Während die fürstlich-liechtensteinischen Beamten in Liechtenstein in der Regel ein Exil sahen, das sie möglichst bald verlassen wollten, hatte Menzinger, der vorher nicht in liechtensteinischen Diensten gestanden hatte, im März 1833 bei Fürst Johann I. um das Amt des liechtensteinischen Landvogts angesucht.

translates as:

While most officials of the princely domains of Liechtenstein saw Liechtenstein [the region that forms the modern country] as an exile [a backwater posting that no-one wanted] which they sought to leave as quickly as possible, Menzinger, who had never served under the Princes of Liechtenstein, applied for the position of Landvogt with Prince Johann I in March 1833.

Basically, Menzinger was remarkable in that he actively sought out the role. However, he did not create the role – it had existed since the 16th century. His role in Liechteinstein history does seem very important, though, so I will not dispute his inclusion in the list itself. The first half of the next sentence is easily verified by source 3. The second half is not entirely verifiable in the sources cited – probably finding the text of the 1862 constitution would be ideal.

Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the party alignment of Feger and Gubelmann. Working to address the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike For the Menzinger part, how would you recommend rewording it? TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to write something by Monday – currently extremely busy. Toadspike [Talk] 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take a crack at it in the meantime. TheBritinator (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator I've reorganized/rewritten that paragraph to fit exactly what the sources say. I hope my directly editing the article isn't some major impropriety in the FLC process. Toadspike [Talk] 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my source review. A few notes:

1. The third paragraph of the lead is verified by the sources cited, except that claim that There are currently five living former prime ministers. I'm assuming this was synthesized from other sources, which I am personally okay with and will not dispute, but if a source could be found that says this explicitly that'd be great. (Also, source 6 says "Government", not "cabinet", getting back to that commonname point I made above).
2. It looks like the birth/death dates and specific dates when each leader took/left office are based on this source [7], currently relegated to the External links section. I think this website would not generally be considered a reliable source (if I am mistaken, please let me know). I know it's a ton of work, but I strongly advise TheBritinator to go through the articles for each person at the Historisches Lexikon and properly cite these dates to that reliable source. For more recent politicians, newspaper articles might have to be found. Toadspike [Talk] 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, there used to be a direct list on the Liechtenstein government website that had the direct dates of each head of government, but for whatever reason it was taken down and I was not able to find any archive. It was quite similar to the PDF I replaced it with but that just has the years instead. I may be wrong but I do believe that is what the source was before I picked up on it over a year ago.

What I'll do is cite the individual lekiton articles with the dates for each person, though this may take a little bit of time. I'll get on it either today or tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike It is done now. The dates for the latter PMs were harder to verify as the lekiton annoyingly didn't state them like the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, I'm checking the new citations. Comments thus far:

1. The link to Source 22 is live, so "URL status" in the citation should be set to "live". Currently the first link in the citation goes to the Internet Archive; you can't see the full article from there.
2. The worldstatesman.org source I previously objected to is still cited a few times. I understand that it's hard to find citations for some specific dates, but in the meantime I have learned that that website is deprecated at RSP, so I strongly encourage you to replace all citations to it.

I noticed that the Lexikon cites some sources in the "Nachrufe" section at the bottom of each article. For instance, you can find the date when Batliner became head of state here. You could also search that website, eliechtensteinensia.li, to find sources.

Best, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll get on that. TheBritinator (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Ping. TheBritinator (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm still going over the sources and dates. There's a small discrepancy around the end of Schädler's term and the start of Prince Alfred's provisional term – the Lexikon says Schädler's entire government resigned on 15.6.1928, and Alfred was provisional head from 24.6. to 6.8.1928. Based on this, I would change the end date of Schädler's term and the start of Alfred's term to 24 June. Toadspike [Talk] 09:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TheBritinator (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred's Lexikon page also says that he was in office until 6 August, not 4 August, so his end date and Hoop's start date should be adjusted accordingly. (The Lexikon should be reliable, but maybe the book I sent you has more info on the specific transfers of power?) Toadspike [Talk] 09:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Lexikon is wrong, newspaper articles from the time confirm the date of Saturday, 4 August 1928 for the opening of the Landtag and the election of Hoop. [8] I recommend can citing this in the refs box for Hoop and not the Lexikon article for Alfred. Toadspike [Talk] 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing spotchecks and I can't find a source for the end of Brunhart's term and the start of Büchel's term. The date currently listed, 26 May 1993, is several weeks after 1989 Liechtenstein general election the election. Same goes for Hilbe and Kieber. This looks like the same problem I brought up earlier with the state archive's list. At this point it might be better to simply state a year instead of giving a specific date which cannot be verified that originated from a deprecated source. (Alternatively, you can try finding more news articles from the time.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the positive side, the more recent transitions are cited to newspaper articles, which is awesome! I also won't go into detail in the dates for the deputies, since I'm assuming these are always the same as the ones for the head of government except for a few cases sourced to the Lexikon. Toadspike [Talk] 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. TheBritinator (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-checked everything and this list is fully sourced and verifiable. I would like to thank TheBritinator's hard work on this. The source review is passed. Toadspike [Talk] 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:BOLDAVOID, I think you are better off avoiding bolding in the first sentence, since you aren't restating the "list of" part.
• Seeing as "Landtag" isn't a common English term, it would be good to provide context ("parliament")
• Originally an undesired post, Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. the first part of this sentence doesn't match the second. Maybe add something like that changed after Michael...
• Re the See also section, "Prince of Liechtenstein" is already linked in the lead. Probably isn't necessary.

That's all I got TheBritinator. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For point 3, would It was originally an undesired post within the court; this changed after Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. be better? Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike Yep! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the see also. TheBritinator (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator and Toadspike: Looks like the first two points are still outstanding? Any thoughts on those? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a clarification about the Landtag, but I would like to keep the bold. Any thoughts on this? TheBritinator (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with it. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source needed a subscription tag (url-access) added, but I took care of that. Promoting. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an important topic and I've put a lot of time into it. I know medical pages can be scary for some but this one is hopefully a bit more straightforward. I have PDFs of all the publications used if needed. I chose to use SFNs to make reviewing easier. I chose not to use tables for this list as it didn't seem appropriate. I tried my hardest to simplify all the medical information but if anything is unclear please let me know. I did struggle a bit with rewording things in a way that wasn't too close to the source but still kept the original meaning so if my wording seems awkward at times please let me know and I will try my hardest to reword things. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense: you haven't completed all the steps to nominate this for FL as laid out in WP:FLC. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it makes sense why I haven't gotten any input then. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see this fully IASP/ICD-11-compliant article. I was at a lecture series hosted by the Swedish Pain Society earlier this year, and they seemed quite proud of this new development. I'm no expert on the use of articles in English, so take the following suggestions with a grain of salt:

• or the anatomical system in which it affects.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two sentences in a row begin The IASP Task Force could that be tweaked?

I changed the second sentence to start off as This task force, does that look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• affecting at least three to four four of five body regions - according to the source.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Body quadrants are defined as the upper, lower, left and right sides of the body. - and my preference would be for an overly careful explanation ("upper left, upper right...").

Changes to Body quadrants are defined as the upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right quadrants of the body, let me know if that looks better. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any non-technical alternative to "distally" in english? Otherwise we could wikilink it.

It could be changed to outwardly but that sounds odd in my opinion. For now I wikilinked it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chronic post traumatic pain is pain that develops are worsens after an injury - needs fixing

changed are to or. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to list all the possible causes of chronic secondary headache or orofacial pain?

The reason I listed all the causes is that I felt that the classification for secondary headache was a little more obscure than say cancer-related pain. If you think it would look better without the causes then I can remove them. FOr now I trimmed it a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm unfamiliar with the FLC-process, could anyone tell me what the standards for a source review is? I might want to attempt one.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source review for FLC's is pretty similiar to that of FAC but pinging Hey man im josh since he has more experience in the area. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if someone is familiar with source reviews at FAC you can do the exact same thing here and it'd be an excellent source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are all appropriate and compliant with both WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS. Spotchecks show that the phrasing has been altered as much as possible to avoid simply parroting the sources, but for technical definitions you can't change the wording more than this and still comply with WP:V. Overall this looks like a pass, and I have but a few pointers:

• I wonder if we can add something about the autonomic dysfunction present in CRPS without getting to technical? It tends to be taught as the hallmark of the disease, alongside pain-out-of-proportion.

I did find this [10] article which states "The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is involved" and "inflammatory changes and autonomic dysregulation". I could change Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. CRPS also involves changes to the autonomic nervous system. as that doesn't seem overly technical and still includes the ANS. Let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that works, but I don't think we need a new source since that much is covered by the one we've got. I'm wondering if we shouldn't call it "dysfunction" and specify that it is also a local one. /DB

The source I originally used [11] states "Complex regional pain syndrome is further characterized by signs indicating autonomic and inflammatory changes in the affected body region that may vary between patients and over time" I'm thinking of changing Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. The sites affected by complex regional pain syndrome experience autonomic and inflammatory changes. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not.. Does that wording sound good? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that "other" as a category has been omitted from several pain types, and I must admit I'm not sure exactly what to do with that category either. Maybe we can just state that this residual category exists for many pain types (unless that's already stated somewhere and I missed it)?

In my original draft I did include the other categories but decided to omit them as it just felt odd. I could include something along the lines of "each classification of chronic pain includes an "other" category to account for pain syndromes which do not fall into the current diagnostic criteria" to address this. What do you think? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds lika an excellent solution. /DB

This source [12] states "ICD-11 automatically adds a category “other” at each level to catch any cases that might have been missed" which I think could be worded as "The ICD-11 also has an "other" category, such as "other chronic cancer pain", to include chronic pain that does not fit into other categories but let me know if I should tweak that wording. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the deal here is that we've got a list of categories, but it hasn't been established in the lede that these categories contain neatly defined sub-categories, "other" being the odd one out in each bundle. Using the "such as" example hints at this, but if we talk about it as one of several sub-categories first and then follow up with the example I think that might be better. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we need to state that Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain as a whole, not just posttraumatic pain, includes referred pain from deeper structures to corresponding dermatomes.

I agree but I'm not sure how to include this. The source I used [13] states "The pain has to be localised to the surgical field or area of injury, projected to the innervation territory of a nerve situated in this area or referred to a dermatome or Head’s zone (after surgery/injury to deep somatic and visceral tissues)." which I think may be what you are trying to touch on but I'm not sure. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and since this is true for both types of pain we need to state so earlier, i.e. under the "Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain"-heading by expanding the sentence that now says The pain is localized to the site of injury or surgery. /DB

I'm struggling on how to word this without sounding overly technical so let me know if you have any ideas. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do rn is: "..or extends to other areas through damaged nerves or referred pain." Which is a bit of a stretch since the source is not explicit about nerve damage. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have The pain is restricted to the surgical field or injury site, projected to the innervation region of a nearby nerve, or referred to a dermatome. which is more technical than I would like but does clarify this a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably gonna need a few more days to think carefully about possible changes to the current phrasing, but that's a prose issue, which means the source review is a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Links are not always linked in the right places. The term "autoimmune" is linked twice, in extremely similar contexts, but the two links point to different articles. "Infection" is linked only on its second appearance. "Rheumatological disorders" should link to Rheumatism (I just created a redirect from the former). Pelvic pain is linked at least twice, but Pelvis doesn't seem to be linked at all. There's a gadget somewhere to check for double linking; maybe the nominator would like try it, and also skim the article again to check that all technical terms are appropriately linked.

I fixed the two cases you pointed out but I'll go back and look for more areas where this could be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm assuming the list is meant to be exhaustive, which seems like a challenging task. May I ask, for instance, why cluster headaches are not listed?

That is because Cluster headaches are a type of Trigeminal autonomic cephalgia which is listed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On a similar note, I doubt the "Chronic postsurgical pain" section can possibly be complete, since I'm pretty sure any surgery can and will result in postsurgical pain. The bulleted list in this section (and other similar ones) should probably be qualified with "Examples include:" or words to that effect.

I mean if you check out the source I used [14] I did include all of the classifications. Of course, any surgery or trauma can cause chronic pain but the classification system is just meant to give names to the most common types. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to make this more clear. Currently the lead says "The ICD-11 category for chronic pain includes the most common types of chronic pain..." and it is implied that the article reflects the ICD-11 categories. Either this LISTCRIT should be explicitly stated in the prose, or the article should be moved to a title like ICD-11 categories of chronic pain. Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I want this list to be a list of chronic pain syndromes not just the ICD-11 categories. I also combined the IASP classification with the ICD classification for this list so that wouldn't really work as a title. The point isn't to list the ICD11 chronic pain syndromes it's just that there is no other accepted classification (unless you can find one). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: To clarify the inclusion criteria and why the ICD-11 was chosen as the main source for this list, I suggest changing:

In order to create a classification system for chronic pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to form the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force was made up of pain experts. This task force developed a new model to classify chronic pain for the ICD-11.

To something clearer and more upfront on the importance of the ICD-11:

The [current/newest] standard model for classifying chronic pain [is/was created for] the ICD-11. The ICD-11 classification was made by the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain, a group of pain experts formed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) in collaboration with the World Health Organization.

Feel free to word this better. By the way, since you never use the abbreviation "WHO", you shouldn't mention it. Toadspike [Talk] 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "post cancer" should probably be "post-cancer", unless most reliable sources disagree. Similarly, the spacing within terms like "posttraumatic"/"post traumatic" should be consistent. (I think "post-traumatic" is best.)

I chose to go with that spacing and style because that us what the sources and ICD use which is kind of the main source for this kind of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the sources cited for the postcancer and posttraumatic sections, neither uses "post cancer" or "post traumatic" with a space. Regardless, you should be consistent between different instances of the same term ("posttraumatic" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article), and I would prefer if you were consistent between different instances of similar terms ("postcancer" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article). Apologies for the pedantry, this should be an easy fix to make the prose look cleaner. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The post cancer and post traumatic with the space are from the ICD. I’ll take a further look when i’m on my laptop and make those fixes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source uses "posttraumatic" and "postcancer" [15] [16] but the icd uses "post traumatic"[17] and "post cancer"[18]. I'm unsure which to use. Do you have a preferance? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spaced versions ("post traumatic") just seem wrong to me, but try as I might, I cannot find anything in the MOS that says so. I prefer "posttraumatic", but since reliable sources use both, it's up to you. Just be consistent! Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Although our article on Psychosomatic medicine is quite underdeveloped, it is likely relevant to this topic. In fact, the image in the lead mentions the related idea of Somatization. I'd appreciate if you could look into that and perhaps add something to the prose – otherwise readers might get the impression that all chronic pain has an obvious, known cause :)

I've thought over my response to this a lot so I hope you can understand what I am trying to say here. The reason I didn't go into depth about this is because I don't really go into depth about the mechanisms of pain other than when it is directly relevant (such as with post cancer pain). The section "Chronic widespread pain" states Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas. which I believe covers your point about not all chronic pain syndromes having a clear cause. Somatization isn't the main mechanism behind chronic pain (in fact through my research I've kinda learnt that there isn't any one main cause) so going into great detail about somatization in particular may look unbalanced. I hope that makes sense. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through several sources now, I see several mention that a major flaw of ICD-10 was that "Diagnoses did not reflect the biopsychosocial model of pain" – mentioning this issue in the lead might also be worthwhile and is closely related the above comment.^[1][2]

The reason I didn't include this was because I don't want this article to focus too much on the ICD classification (although we may be past that point) however I could add something like "the new classification system tries to approach chronic pain from a biopsychosocial model" (wording would be different) if you think that would be appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be perfect. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could tack it onto the end of: This new classification system emphasized the cause of pain, underlying mechanisms, and body sites. Not sure if this is better though. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: I've checked for appropriate licensing and alt text on all images. I believe this FLC passes criterion 5 of the WP:FLCR.

I think that is all from me. If the nominator can address the few remaining points above, I'll be happy to support this nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I have covered all the different point you brought up! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been adequately addressed. I support this FLC! Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment: I see differing uses of the Oxford comma. Choose one style and make sure the whole article is consistent
• It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain. Acute pain serves to signal the body that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger. --> recommend combining, something like It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain, which is to signal that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger.
• The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage". should be the second sentence of the article.
• Chronic pain, on the other hand, does not serve this purpose. Does chronic pain have a purpose? This is a weird thing to state, as you already basically said that in the first few sentences. Just delete this.
• Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder"
• The last sentence of the first paragraph should clarify these statistics are for the entire world
• Chronic primary pain is pain that affects one or more anatomical sites-->Chronic primary pain affects one or more anatomical sites
• can't -->cannot
• such as difficulties at work, difficulties with sleeping, or difficulties with social activities.-->such as those at work, with sleeping, or with social activities.
• and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma delete "the pain"
• Pain may initially be a symptom of a disease however it can need a comm abefore "however"
• doesn't-->does not
• Should posttraumatic have a hyphen in it?

That's what I got IntentionallyDense. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made most of the changes you suggested, however I'm a little confused about Your suggestion of Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder" as that would read as Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing disorder. which doesn't sound right to me.

I regards to the whole hyphen thing, The source [19] uses "Chronic post-traumatic pain" in the subheadings then "Chronic posttraumatic" in text and the ICD uses "Chronic post traumatic pain" However the source spells "Chronic postsurgical pain" without the hyphen or space so for consistansy I decided to just go with no hyphen or space even tho it looks kinda ugly. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant this disorder. Trying to avoid the repeat of "chronic pain". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made the change. Feel free to revert if you disagree with it. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FEATURED LISTS MENTIONED!!! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With 1976 having been promoted and 1977 having some support, here's the next in this series. This was the final year in which the chart was published for the entire year under the by-now rather outdated and "square" title of Easy Listening. This year saw the first number one for Billy Joel, who would go on to be a regular at or near the top of this chart for decades, and the only number one for Chuck Mangione, who only had a brief chart career but would (apparently) go on to achieve fame with a new generation in a cartoon which I have never watched...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Amazing work Chris, I couldn't find anything to criticize. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review images and prose in a sec. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All images are correctly-licensed CC or PD. They have alt-text and are appropriate for the list.
• Sources are consistently formatted.
• Billboard and Whitburn are the most cited, and they seem like quite reliable sources for this. I don't have access to Whitburn, but the Billboard sources sure check out.
• Other misc sources seem appropriate for context and also match what they're used for. Seems good to go here! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait. i forgot i was doing a prose review lmao. let me do that too - I could find no errors in regards to that, so Support on that front too! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I tried to nitpick, but I couldn't find anything. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For my seventh accolades FLC, I have the 2019 film Jojo Rabbit by Taika Waititi. As usual, the style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The table is missing its caption. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full review later but the infobox has a hide/show option that doesn't seem to be working Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work in Vector 2010, but probably none of the other skins. See this discussion. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up to see if you're still intending to do a full review @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the off the odd numbered (with the exception of non-English ones) sources and found consistency.

Why are "Madame fait son Cinéma" and "UK-China Film Collab" reliable?

UK-China Film Collab – I had another source for the Golden Panda Awards, but it came from WP:CGTN, so it's a no. What's left is this from ChinaDaily and the current source; it's hard to find sources on Chinese topics. UK-China Film Collab is an NGO based in the UK and was the best I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madame fait son Cinéma – An invididual critics' website, doesn't seem necessary unreliable; it was the only thing I could find for the Grand Prix this year. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 9 is missing a website

Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 6, 8, and 24 include publisher information while all other refs are just the name of the website. Any reason for this?

I usually include publishers for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo (or use the publisher for the various critics associations/film festivals), but not the various online websites/newspapers like Variety or Hollywood Reporter. Let me know if I need to action anything. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor inconsistancys in dates being using slash's or being written out. I would recommend using User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js to fix it.

Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I found! Ping me if needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant; done a couple, some responses above. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems good except Madame fait son Cinéma, it doenst seem all that reliable, looking at the website it doenst seem to meet the criteria for being a acceptable use of SPS Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant, I've just removed it then. I tried, but I can't find another source that's reliable for this. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this, but it doesn't seem any better than the Madame fait son Cinéma one. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Opening paragraph is unsourced
• "Others criticised how the film handled the handled the sensitivities" - couple of repeated words there
• Waititi's name on the AACTA International Awards row does not sort correctly
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude, done. Let me know if it's enough for the opening paragraph. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of It stars Roman Griffin Davis as Johannes "Jojo" Betzler, a ten-year-old Hitler Youth member who finds out that his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. He must then question his beliefs while dealing with the intervention of his imaginary friend, a fanciful version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi) with a comedic stance on the politics of the war. The film also features Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson, Stephen Merchant, and Alfie Allen. is sourced. Are you treating this a plot summary that doesn't need explicit sourcing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was. I shortened it slightly. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure the list of people who also starred is really covered by that disclaimer, but I would imagine it would be easy enough to source..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourced, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only comment I have for now is all titles of films and TV shows should be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. If you have the time could you review 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for featured list promotion?

--Birdienest81talk 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to this, @Birdienest81. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great job.

--Birdienest81talk 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second sentence, where you name the actors, you also name their characters for Davis and for Hitler, but not the others. I think it would read better and make sense more if you also list the name of his mom and Elsa. So it would read something like who finds out that his mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), is hiding Elsa, a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.
• In the table, Ref(s) can just be Refs.
• You use British/New Zealand English spelling (humour) but not British date format (d/m/y). Jojo Rabbit uses American English, so I would recommend {{Use American English}} for the article page and changing to humor. I would also recommend {{American English}} for the talk page.
• For the Austin Film Critics Association listing, you have d/m/y date format.

That's all I got Sgubaldo. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, @Gonzo fan2007. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I prepared to rewrite "Georges Méliès", I became very intimidated by the literature. To get a better grasp on it and kill two birds with one stone, I expanded this bibliography. Much of it is based on his entry in Oxford Bibliographies, but where applicable, I supplemented it with book reviews and an annotated bibliography by Elizabeth Ezra. All suggestions are appreciated, and I hope to address them as soon as possible! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "many languages, namely English, French, Italian, Spanish, and German" - unless you are absolutely certain that no works about him exist in any other language, maybe say "including English......"
• "exhibition catalogues with materials" - as the article seems to be written in US English, should that last word not be "catalogs"....?
• "A book with that surveys" - huh?
• "a teleological view" - is there an appropriate link for that second word? I personally have no idea what it means
• "Contains studies of Méliès, namely by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian" - why not just "Contains studies of Méliès, by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian".....?
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All fixed! Thanks for your time, and let me know if you see anything else. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: forgot to ping. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• his name often appears in the titles of books, chapters, or articles, not necessarily - Lose the last comma, the one before "not".
• the film career of his brother - He's not mentioned before, so maybe the film career of his brother Gaston?
• Same for his mistress and first wife --> his mistress and first wife, Jehanne d'Alcy. And maybe the link could just blue the name.

  Whoops, "mistress" and "first wife" intended to refer to different people. Now with both names included, this is much clearer. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• as a chapter of Film Before Griffith - Could something else be said about Film Before Griffith. It feels a bit disconnected.
• and U.S. and U.K. - and US and UK, I think, per MOS:US.
• Maybe use {{ill}} to link Il Castoro?
• as a chapter of Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative - Maybe it's worth saying the book was edited by Thomas Elsaesser?
• and a translation of a forum about him hosted by the Commission de recherche historique of the Cinémathèque Française, Tsivian describes - I think a full stop would be better than the comma.
• finds that he criticized colonialism that results from an obsession with quicker modes of transportation - I think there's something wrong there.

  To be more nuanced, Ezra believes that, in a time when new forms of transportation were prospering, his films satirized the resulting prejudice, colonial expansion, and minset of "conquering the unknown". Most famously, the astronomers in A Trip to the Moon, as taken from its article, are presented as bumbling pedants merciless for Selenites. I tweaked the sentence's wording with all this in mind, but let me know if you still have an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that reads better now. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You can link Joan M. Minguet.
• Ditto with Archives françaises du film.
• and within it, - Lose that comma.

That's what I saw. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: All fixed, with two replies of clarification. Thanks for having a look! I'd be happy to review one of your noms; expect comments within a few days. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The opening sentence reads too much that this is an article about the person. Recommend combining the first two sentences: Georges Méliès (1861–1938), a French filmmaker and magician, was the subject of various written works, including biographies, essays, and monographs.
  • Done.
• The professor Frank Kessler "the" isn't needed.
  • I tend not to use false titles, hope you don't mind.
    • Maybe rewrite to be "Frank Kessler, a professor of XXX". "The" makes him sound like a definitive person, yet he doesn't seem to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• and materials related to them in 1949 clarify who "them" is. Her mom and Georges?
  • "Them" was in reference to his films. I tweaked the sentence to hopefully make it clearer.

Nice work Averageuntitleduser! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: All fixed. Many thanks for the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reliability and formatting of the references both appear on point, and the link-checker tool didn't detect any problems (it hates DOI links, but that apparently can't be helped). About the only thing I'd recommend would be to alphabetize the two full book cites in the bibliography, but this isn't a huge deal. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: Thanks for looking at the sources! Are the two books not already in alphabetical order? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They do look alphabetized by book title, so I see no issue with that. I'm going to go ahead and promote this.

• 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not many FLs in cricket statistics pages, trying make this an Exemplary list. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text shouldn't begin with This is the list of. I recommend you have a look at other featured lists for similar topics, because they will come in handy when trying to write a good lede for this one. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The tables in the Group stage standings are an unholy mess (on my screen at least). They break across multiple columns and overlap each other. Something is seriously up there. Oh, and I endorse the above comment about the lead. It should not start "This is a list of" per MOS:THISISALIST and in all honesty a lead of just two sentences isn't appropriate for a potential FL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Could you be a little more specific about what's the problem with standings... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On my screen it looks like this.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that this issue has apparently now been resolved, so I will do a full review in due course. One thing that jumps out at me is that there's no context provided for some of the stats or any indication of what they actually mean. For example, there's a table of players with the best strike rate, but no explanation of what strike rate is or even a link to another article that explains it. I personally know the basics of cricket but have no idea what strike rate is and the article doesn't provide me with any way to find that out. I appreciate that within an article we can assume a certain level of basic knowledge of a subject (i.e. I wouldn't expect a football article to need to explain what "scoring a goal" means) but some of the items listed here seem to go way beyond that basic level and we ought to at least afford people the opportunity to find out what these things are if they don't know, without having to resort to Google..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, I'll be honest until a few hours ago even I didn't know how Average/ Strike rate were calculated, I just assumed they were somehow calculated. I've just read the relevant articles and I'll complete adding a one-line description of what they are, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude All done, you can carry on with the review now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Would it be okay if the equations for strike rate, average etc. is removed... there's already a written explanation and link to its page. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hardik Pandya in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Shai Hope.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Fazalhaq Farooqi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Arshdeep Singh in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Tim Southee 3.jpg - GFDL
• File:2018.01.21.14.55.22-Roy c Finch b Cummins-0001 (40183230984) (Cummins cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Modi with Rishabh Pant.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Aiden Markram (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Virat Kohli in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with Shri Rohit Gurunath Sharma (Cropped).jpg - GODL-India
• File:Jasprit Bumrah in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• Images have suitable captions and licenses
• Images need alt text^^
  • Hope these can be addressed! - Arconning (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add them tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Arconning All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Arconning (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of ICC Men's T20 World Cup" => "The 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup"
• "Following is a list of major statistics and records from the tournament; most lists contain only the top five tiers for each record." - this is just moving the sentence mentioned above from the start to a later point in the article. In all honesty I don't think it's needed.
• The lead still feels a bit short. Can you work in some of the "highlights" from the article?
• "Dates given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place" => "Date given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place"
• "the first English player to take hat-trick in T20 World Cup." => "the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup."
• "most wins as Indian Captain in T20Is" - captain is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C
• "Niko Davin became the first batter to be dismissed retired out in a T20 World Cup match" - link "retired out" if an appropriate target exists
• "6 June 2024; He was later surpassed by Rohit Sharma." - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
• "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time with the virtue of being a co-host.." => "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time by virtue of being a co-host." (only needs one full stop at the end, not two)
• "the 5th highest total in the history of T20 World Cup" => "the 5th highest total in the history of the T20 World Cup"
• " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of T20 World Cup respectively" => " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of the T20 World Cup respectively"
• "the top two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" => "the two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" (can't really be "top" of the list given that it was a "negative" record)
• Most runs - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
• Highest scores - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
• ....and so on for every other table containing player names
• "The "batting average" is the total number of runs they have scored" => "The "batting average" is the total number of runs a batter has scored"
• Pandya image caption needs a full stop and also the word "the" before "highest batting average"
• "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)." => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)."
• Hope image caption needs a full stop
• "they were both tied at the 5th place" => "they were both tied in 5th place"
• Farooqi image caption needs a full stop
• ....and so on for every other image caption
• "The "bowling average" is the number of runs they have conceded" => "The "bowling average" is the number of runs a bowler conceded"
• "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs they have conceded per over bowled." => "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs a bowler has conceded per over bowled."
• "The "Hat-trick" occurs " - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
• I can't see any value in the "batsmen out" column of the "hat-tricks" table being sortable
• In the partnerships tables, use "and" not "&" per MOS:AMPERSAND
• Image caption : "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain for team of the tournament" => "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament."
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I have made all the changes and expanded the lead. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: regarding sorting the players in the table, which of the following would be suitable for listing a player...

  • Pat Cummins
  • Pat Cummins (AUS)
  • Pat Cummins (AUS)

  Which of these would be the appropriate way? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would personally go for the second one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Canada, Uganda and United States made their T20 World Cup debut, with US progressing to the Super 8 stage in their first T20 World Cup" - you state that it was the first World Cup for the US twice in the same sentence. Also, it should be the US, not just US
• "or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled" => "or if no overs remained (or were able) to be bowled" (so the tenses agree)
• "(5/40) indicates that a bowler has captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs" => "(5/40) indicates that a bowler captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs"
• "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in the T20 World Cup history." => "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in T20 World Cup history."
• "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup" => "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in the T20 World Cup"
• "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), breaking the record of 12 years set by England" => "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), surpassing the 12 years set by England" (would avoid saying "break the record" twice in the same sentence
• "were the top two lowest match aggregates" => "were the two lowest match aggregates" (can't really be "top" of a list of the lowest figures)
• "2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have" => "The 2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have"
• "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average " => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average "
• In the best economy table there's a random bracket before Lockie Ferguson
• Is there a reason why, in the player of the match tables, the "player" column is the only one that's not sortable?
• "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament." - "captain" is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will list the sources in order that they appear:

1. Good. Supports 2.
2. Good. Supports 1.
3. Needs the author adding. Please user |first=Jonathan|last=Healy.
4. This source is a little random, it doesn't really support "This was the first major ICC tournament to feature matches played in the United States with Grand Prairie Stadium, Texas and Nassau County International Cricket Stadium, New York hosting their first ever T20I matches, with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality."
5. Supports "...with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality".

6A. Supports "Canada, Uganda and the United States made their T20 World Cup debuts...", however a further source for the USA reaching the Super 8 stage is needed. The author also needs crediting, please use |first=Roddur|last=Mookherjee.

7A. Good.

8A. Good.

9. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kingshuk|last=Kusari.

10A. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Chalke.

11. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

12. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Mike|last=Peter.

13. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sampath|last=Bandarupalli.

7B. Good.

14. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

15. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Megha|last=Mallick.

16. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aditya|last=Kumar.

17. Good.

8B. Good.

18. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

6B Good.

19. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

20. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sabyasachi|last=Chowdhury.

21. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aakash|last=Sivasubramaniam

Cont...

22. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

23. Good.

24. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

11B. Good.

25. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Sadhu.

26. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

9B. Good.

27. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sandeep|last=G.

28. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

29. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Saurav|last=Mukherjee.

30. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.

31. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.

32. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

11C. Good.

33. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Andrew Fidel|last=Fernando.

34. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

7C. Good.

7D. Good.

35. Good.

36. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

37. Good. The publisher is the Hindustan Times, so needs |location= after the work/publisher.

38. Good.

39. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

40–45. Good.

46. Does not back up the sentence as it is the same as Ref 42. Good.

47. Good.

48. Good.

49. Acceptable. It does require the reader to access the source and decipher this themselves? Is there an alternative source which directly mentions this?

50. Good.

51. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kartikeya|last=Date, plus the date of publication using |date=.

52–56. Good.

57. Have you manually added the total number of fours? If so, are there any written sources which discuss this number? Just worried manually adding the total could venture into WP:OR. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.

Comment. Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC also needs Ref 57 applied to it.

58. Same concerns with Ref 57. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.

9C. Good.

59. Good.

60. Good.

All of these references need a second look taking at the "retrieved dates". |date= should be the date the work was published (if given), and |access-date should be the date you retrieved the work. Please look at these again and amend to match. Cont...

61. Good.

62. This source references pages 42–49, though I can't find anything about bowling averages in that section (unless I have just missed it). Just talks about the various laws around batsmen dismissal.

63. Good.

64. Good.

65. Good. (Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint).

66. Good.

10B. Good.

67–72. Good.

• Comment. "Sherfane Rutherford and Gudakesh Motie achieved a partnership for the 10th wicket of 37*. This was the highest partnership for the 10th wicket in a T20 World Cup." This will need a reference.

73. Good.

74. Good.

75. Dead link. This link is dead, and the archived page sends you to a sponsorship page.

76–78. Good.

@Vestrian24Bio: I will look through some more later! AA (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate, I have made these changes now. I am not exactly sure about how the |location= is used so I have added it to only a few; once you review them, I will do it for the rest as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: |location= is for the location of the publication, for example: {{cite news|url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS303379183/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=2fba20cb|title=Brig.-General R. M. Poore|work=[[The Times]]|location=London|issue=48027|page=18|date=15 July 1938|access-date=22 May 2024|url-access=subscription|via=Gale|archive-date=6 October 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006130842/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=TTDA&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CCS303379183&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-TTDA&asid=2fba20cb|url-status=live}}

Hope that helps :)

I will try and review a few more tomorrow, around some other things I have to do. AA (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now, thanks Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio:. I've gone through refs 22 to 60 this evening, have left comments/suggestions. Having a look at the news outlet based ones, as a rule of thumb, they could be {{cite news|... and not {{cite web|... As above, access-dates and the date of publication of written works needs checking. AA (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: have added |location= along with authors and other above-mentioned things. ref 46 fixed, added another source to support ref 49; ref 57 & 58 unfortunately are WP:OR . Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, replaced {{cite web}} with {{cite news}} for news sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I will just run with 57 and 58, the tallies add up. New reference is good. AA (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: What does Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint mean? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just remarking how he had an economy rate of 3, that's impressive! AA (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done here, except for the dead link - I could not find any other source on the internet; we could remove it and,

• Leave everything the way they are as each match is linked to its scorecard on its corresponding page or,
• Give links to ESPNcricinfo scorecards for each match...

@AssociateAffiliate: What are youe thoughts... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio:, please find above my comments for the final references. I'll list some suggestions below.

• For the table "Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC", please insert the following reference once you have reviewed the other references (I haven't inserted this reference as I didn't want to muddle the order of my review):

{{cite web|url=https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/tournament/batting-most-fours-career/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2024-15946|title=Most fours For ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2024|website=ESPNcricinfo|access-date=15 November 2024}}

• On the subject of tables, I'm don't think you need "2024 T20WC" to be included in them, as it is clear the article is about the 2024 T20WC.
• I'd not bother with the Jasprit Bumrah 'Player of the tournament' table, as he is the only subject. Just rewrite the opening sentence for that section, something like "...with Jasprit Bumrah being named as player of the tournament, having taken 15 wickets at an average of 8.26. Rohit Sharma was named captain of the team."
• Where possible, combine images. The 'Backgound' section of the Lord's article has an example of this. It might help to make the photos more compact and organised better within their sections.
• When linking sources, e.g. BBC, IndiaToday, ESPNcrinfo, only the first occurrence needs to be linked. Same with locations, so for example, only the first mention of Mumbai needs to be linked to the corresponding wiki article.
• In the lead, link "bowler".
• After the first mention of International Cricket Council in the lead, put "(ICC)" after it.
• One last minor point, not a biggy! Some of the references are in a muddled order, with different parameters in different places. Making them uniform makes them easier to modify and looks neater. I tend to go for this order:

{{cite web/news|url= |title= |first= |last= |author-link= (used if the person has an article on here) |website/publisher/work= |location= |page= |date= |access-date= |archive-date= |archive-url= |url-status= live/dead}}

Might be worth just reordering them, but like I said, not a biggy! AA (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate About the first point, would it be fine if all the sources are moved to the tables' captions??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem :) AA (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All points on this section is done except for the last one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Awesome, all points covered. I found a different archive for 75. AA (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify the use of British or American English (i.e. {{Use British English}} and {{British English}})
• In the second paragraph of the lead, you start out four consecutive sentences with "PERSON became...". Can you change the wording up a bit?

That's all I got AssociateAffiliate. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vestrian24Bio:, this is meant for you! AA (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I've added American English tags now and I'm not sure what do you mean by the second point... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mix-up on the nominator Vestrian24Bio. Re the second point, you have Pat Cummins became... Shakib Al Hasan became... Rohit Sharma became... Niko Davin became in four straight sentences. The repetitive use of "became" should be improved by changing word use or sentence structure. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Funny enough, I do have an FLC on the go! ;) AA (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I have copy-edited the paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis's seven-year run at the top of the rankings was ended by Stephen Hendry. As usual, Alex Higgins was in trouble with the snooker authorities: he was docked 25 points which dropped him from 14th to 97th. All improvement suggestions are welcome, and relevant extracts from offline sources can be provided to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "but was docked 25 points and banned from competing for ten months, in July 1990" - please state the reason(s) for this

• Apologies for the delay, EnthusiastWorld37. I've added something about this. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• other than world championship into account, and several additional the comma isn't necessary
• only take account of results over two seasons, and the rankings for 1990–91 same as above
• was too rapid, and said that same as above
• for ten months, in July 1990 same as above
• Source review: Passed
  • All references look reliable and consistently formatted.
  • All online source spot checks look good. AGF on offline sources.

Nice work BennyOnTheLoose! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Gonzo_fan2007. I've removed the commas per your comments above. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) [25].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the 1977 list having just been promoted, and the 1978 list having multiple supports, I now present the 1979 list. In this particular year, the top of the chart was dominated by a Canadian singer who spent fully a quarter of the year in the top spot. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me, I've done a complete check and didn't see any problems. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Support, no issues whatsoever. I'm always surprised when some of the entries on these lists aren't their own articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks solid throughout the lede, don't see any problems there. The list is also properly formatted according to the MOS, and fits accessibility criteria. All images are properly licensed and have alt text (not a requirement, but nice to have!) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main comment is about the use of "would end" and "would remain"; could just rewrite to "ended" and "remained" to comply with MOS's requirement for succinctness. Image captions use false titles but the lead does not, so I suggest picking one for consistency. Otherwise, I can't really find anything else and these are mostly nitpicks anyway. Well done! Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ChrisTheDude. Happy to support Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 23:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the photos used have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even trying to be picky, I cannot find anything. Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the platform that is the basis for what is currently all of my featured articles—the DB9, Rapide, Vanquish and the Lagonda Taraf—the VH platform. Shorter than other lists, I believe it meets the criteria. Enjoy! 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

• Please take a look at MOS:COLHEAD.
• Also, choose either one of "Body style" or "Model name" as the header cell for each row. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressed the first concern. No-one raised concerns about the latter in my previous FLC? 750h+ 12:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It got overlooked, I think. The usual way is just to have one header cell, but you can have 2 row headers just like you can have two column headers, though they'd both need scope=row and right now the name column cells don't. What would happen if you have two is a screen reader will read out "Grand tourer DB9" or "Sports car Vantage" as the identifier for the row- so if you're on the Introduction year column row 1 and hit the down arrow, it will read out "Sports car Vantage, Introduction year, 2005". If you're okay with that, then just add the rowscopes to the name column; I'd personally go with just having the name column as the header as it's unique to the row, but either way is fine. --PresN 21:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN: is this better? 750h+ 04:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Made a small change, but yep, looks good. --PresN 14:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Why are there two separate tables with identical headers? What differentiates the cars in the two tables from each other? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: accident, fixed. 750h+ 10:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), Vanquish (produced until 2018)." => " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), and Vanquish (produced until 2018)."
• "They implemented modifications " - who is "they"? The last sentence referred to Bez, a singular person.
• As the tables are sortable, you need to link terms every time they are used. Currently "grand tourer" is linked only once in the first table and not at all in the second.
• The abbreviation for the "Ref." column should probably be "Refs." as every row has more than one
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All done @ChrisTheDude:. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• prose is good
• images are good
• sources are good
• Support Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Airship

• Could we have more details on the differences between the "generations"?
  • It would also be nice if the tables below say which generation(s) each car belonged to.
    • Done the latter. Unfortunately i can't find much on the former,
• The VH platform was developed to be flexible; every vehicle that uses it incorporates bonded and riveted aluminium to reduce weight. The phrase before the semicolon doesn't seem to be that relevant to the phrase after it, unless "flexible" refers to the lack of stiffness in the materials, and not design flexibility in systems as I had previously assumed?

  done

• Do the different types of "Body style" have any impact on the VH platform? If not, why do they need a column in the table?

  thought it was important. body style is how the car looks, and they are probably the largest difference between the vehicles

• Do we know anything about Aston Martin's future plans for the vehicles?

  the platform, and every car that uses it, is discontinued.

  Would be nice to have that explicitly mentioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AirshipJungleman29: done. 750h+ 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: thanks for the comments. 750h+ 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments will be on their way shortly. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 03:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine X-eye, just a friendly ping. Sometimes a reviewer saying they will be back will hold up a nomination from being promoted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Excluding the V12 Vanquish, and the DB11, the latter of which was manufactured from September 2016 and used an all-new platform

In note 1, the first comma and second "the" seem unnecessary

• The first vehicle to use the VH platform was the DB9, which constituted the platform's first generation. The Vantage, introduced in 2005, used the second generation of the platform, along with the DBS and DB10, introduced in 2007 and 2014, respectively. The third generation of the platform was used by the Virage in 2011, the 2012 facelift of the DB9 and the 2012 Vanquish. The Rapide and Lagonda Taraf used the fourth generation, an extended version of the platform.[8][9] The cars have since been discontinued. The Virage and DBS both ended production in 2012,[10][11] followed by the DB10 in 2015.[12] The DB9 and Taraf were discontinued in 2016,[13] [14] while the Vantage and Vanquish ended production in 2018.[15][16] Isn't it weird that all these sentences start with "the"?
  • no, not really. i don't really see what else to use
• Manufacture of the Rapide ended in 2020. Manufacture doesn't sound right. Maybe "The manufacturing" or "production" would be better
• Can you provide a page range for your bibliography? Because you are not using the whole book.
  • I don't really see why, since other articles don't.

That's all I got, excellent work!!! Once you're done, please give me a ping, and if you are interested please drop some comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pholidotans/archive1. I would also like to apologize for giving this review so late on. Life has been something else. Thanks anyway for your enduring patience. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye: done. will take a look at your article soon. 750h+ 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:BOLDAVOID, I think you either need to drop the bold or rewrite so that the title can be restated (almost) exactly.
• Note 1 is confusing. You basically make a definitive statement in the text, but then qualify that in a hidden note that your statement isn't 100% true.
• Image review: all images are freely licensed.
• Source review: Passed
  • All reference formatting appears consistent.
  • All references are appropriate and reliable for what is being cited.
  • Spot checks on 16 different sources matched what was being cited.

750h+ nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: done. thanks for the review. 750h+ 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't miss my lists of obscure New Zealand historical sites! Today's territorial authority is Stratford, a relatively isolated part of the North Island most famous as the birthplace of "talkies" in the Southern Hemisphere! Thank you all as always for your time looking at this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image could be made bigger
• " the English hometown of Shakespeare" - no reason not to show his full name
• I am no authority but I am pretty sure that New Zealand uses British English, so "colonization" should be "colonisation", "named for" should be "named after", "center" should be "centre", "centralized" should be "centralised", etc
• "12£ worth of coins" => "£12 worth of coins"
• "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, silversmith, and herbal pharmacy" => "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, a silversmith, and a herbal pharmacist"
• That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the review! I think I got everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 2 – Change website to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand instead of Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand
  • Done. - G
• Downcase "(Former)" to "(former)" where applicable in the entries. I understand the sources use "(Former)", but it's not a proper name, so we should downcase it as we have in the other NZ historic places lists you've nommed.
  • Done. - G
• The list could benefit from some type of WP:SIGCOV, not that I doubt the list and the items in it are notable based on the historic classifications
  • Added some more coverage that I could find.
• The list could be improved by explaining why the Mangaotuku Truss Bridge is no longer a categorized site. Reading this list, I found myself curious about why that happened.
  • Huh? It says that it was destroyed by a flood. - G