Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2022

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive overview of the member states of the ILO. I've been working on the list on and off for 18 months and believe it is probably now the most complete article on the member states of any international organisation on Wikipedia. This is my first FLC. It was nominated for peer review, but received no feedback. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLOR, a background colour alone cannot be used to indicate something, you need to add a symbol as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A different option might be to add a column with a green tick or yellow tick denoting founding member or invited, respectively...? Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The ticks would have to be in different columns, as having ticks of different colours in a single column would also violate MOS:COLOR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That'll be a no, then. :) Thanks, again. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

• Done.

• A few rows seem to be missing their rowscope- for example Republic of Vietnam and People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in the Former members section, and State of Palestine in the next section.

• Done. I've done a check of every row, throughout all the tables, it should be there for all now.

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for spotting these and brining to my attention. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "presently has 187 member states"- per MOS:CURRENTLY, change this to a statement along the lines of "as of August 2022"

• Done. Revised paragraphs one and two of the lede to accommodate.

• "The ILO was founded in 1919" - you only just said that

• Done.

• Third para of the lead is unsourced

• Only first sentence of the paragraph is not sourced elsewhere, added source for that sentence. Acceptable?

• "Prior participation as part of the Soviet Union." - this is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop. Check for other such cases.

• Done

• "citing the organisation's lack of support to anti-colonial liberation movements" - here the British spelling of organisation is used, but earlier the American spelling was used

• Done (technically, use here is Oxford English, but still a mistake in consistency nevertheless!)

• Image caption "Visit of Haile Selaisse of Ethiopia to the ILO, August 1924." is also not a complete sentence

• Done

• Nor is "Stamp issued by the GDR (East Germany) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the ILO."

• Done

• "in the northern Spring of 1990" - spring is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital S

• Done

• Ref 116 gives a Harv error (the date is wrong)

• Done

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for spotting these! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Created in 1919" — Established would be more appropriate word, I think.
• "of the Versailles Treaty" — Well, the official name is "Treaty of Versailles". We should be using that.
• "Joseph Stalin (left) and Franklin Roosevelt (right)" — the WP:COMMONNAME is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
• Ref#52: "Shtylla 1967, pp. 385–6." should be 386 for consistency
• Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs, using https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/

That is all I have! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kavyansh.Singh, all done. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The ILO's rules allow admission without membership in the UN, but the conditions to be satisfied in this case are more complex than for a UN member state." There are several unreferenced statements in the lead. Most do not require refs as they are summaries of the table, but this statement does need a ref.
  • This information appeared in a note attached to the comment on Sudan's membership as prior to UN membership, but I have moved it to a more prominent location to make it clearer.
    • The statement still needs a ref. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information was referenced already, however, I've expanded the text and added further references (to the ILO Constitution itself, plus another source).
• A list of 187 items should use Template:Compact TOC for ease of searching, as in List of municipalities in Arkansas.
  • Added.
• I do not think it is necessary to give full formal names, such as "Bolivia (Plurinational State of)", but that is a matter of personal preference.
  • This is the way in which the ILO records the state's membership and this also matches the form in the UN member states article.
• "Founding members appear with "+" and a blue background; states invited to be founding members appear with * and a khaki background." I do not see that the distinction is justifified. They all joined on the same date. The fact that some were signatories to the Versailles Treaty is not relevant so far as I can see.
  • The distinction is made by the ILO.
• Republic of Korea and Republic of Moldova. They should be listed alphabetically under Korea and Moldova, not Republic. Ditto United Republic of Tanzania.
  • As above, this is how the names of these states are recorded in the ILO membership list and matches the UN member states article.
    • I think that listing countries where readers will look for them should take priority over the ILO format, but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could add "For X see Y" rows with links for the three cases of this?
• Where a country has resumed membership, you should say readmitted, not admitted. Ditto with the heading in the withdrawals table. You say "Since establishment, 19 states have withdrawn from membership, although all were subsequently readmitted. You sometimes imply a distinction between a former member being admitted or readmitted, but this is unclear and confusing.
  • Unfortunately, the sources are contradictory. For example, initially, the Baltic states were offered admission to the ILO in 1991, which they refused, demanding "readmission". I've used admission for all states which formally withdrew and rejoined, and readmission for states removed from membership, but did not formally withdraw.
• " After the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) was admitted in 1951". Is there a reason you do not also mention the GDR here?
  • The GDR is mentioned in note B. However, I've moved that text to follow the mention of FRG joining in 1951 to make it clearer.
• There are several cite errors showing up, particularly that the Frauman source is not used. For the script to show errors, see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for spotting that, now removed. I don't see any other errors.
    • I get error messages on the citations, but they are minor. The messages refer for further information to [[Category:CS1 maint: url-status]]. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for highlighting that; I wasn't able to see those, but have now been able to identify them individually. These seem to have been created through use of the autocitation function of the visual editor. All removed.
  • @Dudley Miles Thank you for these comments, working on them. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Responded to all your comments, many thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dudley Miles:Responded to your second round of comments, regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My queries dealt with. I would delete the columns in the notes as two columns for three notes looks odd, but that is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point about the notes; I've fixed that. Thanks again for the comments. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Reference reliability looks okay throughout the article. Here are some (small) formatting issues I discovered:

With the above items fixed, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand has six WHS and a further seven on the tentative list. The style is standard for the WHS lists. Italy has just been promoted (many thanks to everyone who found time to go through that massive list - the next couple of nominations will be shorter) and Cambodia is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sukhothai (Wat_Mahathat pictured) - lose that underscore
• "They were important in development of first distinct Siamese architectural style" => "They were important in the development of the first distinct Siamese architectural style"
• "The large sandstone rock formations in the area have inspired peoples through centuries" => "The large sandstone rock formations in the area have inspired peoples throughout the centuries"
• Buddha is wikilinked in at least two places, only needs linking once
• "It is located on a rim of an extinct volcano" => "It is located on the rim of an extinct volcano"
• "the remains of the water managements system" => "the remains of the water management system"
• That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks! I left Buddha linked because of the sortable tables, the rest if fixed. Tone 10:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First sentence in lede is somewhat convoluted, could do with copy-editing. Eg in "which have been nominated by countries which are signatories to the" the phrase "countries which are" could be dropped, as only countries can be signatories.
• Conventions are adopted, not established.
• Map: Per H:Colorblind - red and green should not be used together, needs a new colour scheme, would suggest yellow, green and light green.
• Map caption mentions sites five times. What about: "World Heritage Sites in Thailand. Yellow indicates sites of cultural value, green natural (with the multi-site Dong Phayayen–Khao Yai Forest Complex light green)"
• As of 2022, Thailand has six sites on the list. -> As of 2022, Thailand has successfully nominated six sites to the list.
• As of 2022, Thailand also has seven sites on the tentative list. -> As of 2022, Thailand has placed an additional seven sites on the tentative list.
• See also section: perhaps add History of Thailand and Geography of Thailand.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I changed the colours on the map as suggested (I left the blue dots because I am not sure if light green is available). As for the lede, this is the standard wording that we've been using over many many articles, so unless it is fundamentally wrong, I'd leave it as it is. Geography and history links are already in the link box at the bottom. Tourism perhaps makes sense since the UNESCO sites get visited a lot. Sometimes I add a link to lists of historical sites but we could just as well go without that section. Tone 12:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tone - I checked at the store and they do have more colours available ... :) ... I'm less concerned with which colour, but looking at the map now, I can see my recommendation for yellow doesn't show up well. Perhaps try a different combination bearing in mind the colour blind issue (maybe gold?). For logic it seemed to me the multisite location should be a shade of the matching type, but when I tested it in light green it did not seem to distinguish clearly, so perhaps not necessary (shaded, that is). As for the lede, the part I would insist on is "adopted", it's quite specific language ("The Convention was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972", "The General Conference of UNESCO adopted on 16 November 1972 the Recommendation concerning the Protection at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural ...", "The adoption of the 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was a milestone in international cultural policy"). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text following your suggestion in the Cambodia article, I think it reads nice. I replaced the dots with gold, better than yellow for sure. I agree with the shaded green, that's why I left it blue :) Tone 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Wat Mahathat". "Wat Mahathat temple" would be clearer.
• Thungyai–Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries. It would be helpful to give the area.
• Ban Chiang. I think you should say that it is a large mound.
• "Due to its location at the contact of the Himalayan, Indochina, and Sumatran faunal and floral realms". "junction" would be a better word than "contact".
• "Early shrines date to the Dvaravati period." When?
• "The serial nomination". What is a serial nomination? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Serial nomination is a nomination that covers more than one site/location, I removed the word to avoid confusion, the text still reads fine. Tone 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wat Mahathat temple" is redundant. It would be like describing "Schloss Neuschwanstein castle" or "Loch Ness lake". --Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct, wat means temple. I will remove it. Tone 12:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I still have to work on some lists of WHS in Europe, but I'll take a detour to Southeast Asia now. Cambodia has 3 WHS and 8 sites on the tentative list. Most of the sites are ancient cities and temples. The style is standard for WHS lists. The list for Italy, which is currently nominated, is seeing some support already (I know that list is massive, so this one is on the shorter side). Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The site was immediately placed to the" => "The site was immediately placed on the"
• "was the site of the capitals of the Khmer Empire" - is capitals (plural) correct?
• "along a 800 m (2,600 ft) axis" => "along an 800 m (2,600 ft) axis"
• "Koh Ker was the capital of Khmer Empire" => "Koh Ker was the capital of the Khmer Empire"
• "king Jayavarman II declared the independence" => "king Jayavarman II declared independence"
• "and then often took to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek" => "and then often taken to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek"
• "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motives" => "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motifs"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks! Yes, capitals, plural. I added the word "different" to make it clearer. Tone 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this FLC. I want to raise my concern that the only publication used in this article is UNESCO. Since this list is selected by UNESCO, I think they would be considered a primary source and thus some secondary sources would be necessary to help verify the information. Furthermore, the description section has lots of information that can be verified in other sources that would be of a higher quality than UNESCO such as academic sources. I am not saying that the UNESCO references should be removed, but that secondary sources need to be added to this article. I am not posting this as an "oppose" because I want to give the nominator and others a chance to respond or make changes to the article. Please ping me if there are any questions or responses. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the issue, it has been raised in some previous WHS nominations. There seems to be a rough consensus that the UNESCO is the reliable source that is sufficient here. Of course, most information could be sourced to other sources but the key thing is why some site is on the list (or tentative list), and this is always according to the UNESCO justification of outstanding universal value. I sometimes add third-party sources when the UNESCO one is lacking information, though. Tone 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading through the descriptions more closely, and the text is doing a great job describing the site, but it doesn't explicitly mention why it was picked to be a WHS. I suggest adding secondary sources for the descriptors and a brief, one sentence explanation that says something like "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because..."

I also think that most, if not all, of the statements currently in the description section should be cited to higher-quality, academic sources. Statements like, "The Angkor area, one of the largest archaeological areas in the world," can probably be verified to a better source. It makes sense for the UNESCO data column to be cited to UNESCO, but I find it harder to support the descriptions using only one source. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing each detail to academic sources is probably an overkill. The UNESCO sources are considered reliable and everything is there, so this should be sufficient. The justification is in the descriptions, if you look at the sources, this is under criteria i-x, when writing, I am always paying attention to that part and try to summarize it in the description. The description ideally always states what the site is and why it is important, so we don't need specifically state that "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because...". In the 20 or so previous nominations, the sources were always fine, so I think we can keep it as it is. Tone 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "due to its remote location, is well preserved". The source says mainly due. The qualification is important and should be retained.
• "the concept of God-King, a government system that existed in Cambodia and Thailand until the 20th century". This wording is confusing. The source says "It remained a concept that was fundamental to the political and governance systems of Cambodia and Thailand until the beginning of the 20th century." The concept was fundamental to the system, but it could not be the system.
• " It was the site where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802, from the city of Mahendraparvata." Also confusing. Perhaps "It includes the city of Mahendraparvata, where king Jayavarman II declared independence from Java in 802." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have my comments challenged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me like the "Cultural heritage consists of monuments..." and "Natural features..." should mention that these are UNESCO definitions, but perhaps it's already obvious enough from the context and references.
• I suggest adding a few words to explain "tentative list" in the intro. (I know it's already explained in the Tenative list section.)
• Some refs are out of numerical order ([7][4][5])
• I am in sympathy with Z1720's comments about adding secondary sources. WP:SOURCE says "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources" (emphasis added by me). I guess there could be some incentive for countries to add to their tentative lists for reasons of tourism, so I think the argument for tentative lists being reliable is weaker than for the WHS list. However, I have no evidence for this, and if there's consensus that these type of articles can be based just on UNESCO/state sources then I'm not going to oppose on this point. (I see from the UNESCO site that "The sole responsibility for the content of each Tentative List lies with the State Party concerned")

• Thanks for checking! I fixed the refs order. As for the first two points, yes, it is kind of clear that this is UNESCO terminology, and stating what tentative lists are would be repetitive. As for the sources, it will always be either UNESCO or related ICOMOS sources that primarily state why something is of outstanding quality, and this is the relevant part. All other sources will be directly derived. Of course, we could source the fact that X temple was constructed in the Y century to a scholarly paper or a book, but this would be adding extra references to an already valid and reliable one, so it is redundant. Speaking of, yes, the tentative list sources are often of lesser quality than the main list ones, because several nominations are old and have not been updated. Yet still, this is the place where it is explained why the property is nominated. --Tone 19:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for replying to my points. I couldn't see any other issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Similarly to another World Heritage Sites lists that I just looked at recently, the sources used are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool turned up no issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 14:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is an American film that received numerous accolades from various outlets. I nominated this list since I have reworked and expanded this list as its first nomination did not gain any support(s). Chompy Ace 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some oddities when sorting the recipients column. Andy Nelson sorts between Roger Guyett and Rick Hankins. April Webster sorts between Lessons and Name. Joshua Lee sorts between Daisy Ridley and Neal Scanlan.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude  Fixed. Chompy Ace 00:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film have received" => "The film has received"
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens – (John Boyega) - dash and brackets combo looks odd
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens (LA) - what's LA in this context?
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude all  Done. Chompy Ace 22:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Birdienest81

The only thing I would change is for websites whose Wikipedia pages are not italicized (BBC News, Box Office Mojo, GMA Network, The Numbers, etc.), move the citation field from "website" to "publisher". Otherwise, great work. Would you take a look at 94th Academy Awards, regarding its featured list nomination?

--Birdienest81talk 08:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81 per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in Chompy Ace 21:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81? Also, I cannot do it because that guideline linked to it would affect with {{Cite Box Office Mojo}} and/or {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}}, since they automatically do themselves. It would be the case per List of accolades received by The Shape of Water. Chompy Ace 20:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birdienest81:  Done except those website-specific citation templates (which conforms MOS:ITALICWEBCITE) per above comment. Chompy Ace 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I forgot about that Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo has its own template. So yes, those cannot be overridden. However, BBC News, GMA Network, The Numbers, etc. do not have their own template. So those should be placed under publisher or agency fields. Otherwise, good work.

--Birdienest81talk 07:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Harushiga

• Great job as usual! My only comment is that you used an archived version of ref 13, which states that the film is the third highest-grossing of all time. However, looking at its latest version, it states that it's now the fourth highest-grossing. Harushiga (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harushiga: Its peak position is third at the end of its theatrical run so keep per diff at Avengers: Age of Ultron (Special:Diff/1113904715): "dated status, subject to change"; and the notes regarding such place for that article (which placed AoU at fifth eventually: "This is the PEAK POSITION the film achieved NOT the CURRENT. Please do NOT adjust!" The dead link is fine for me. Chompy Ace 13:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, this is a support for me! Harushiga (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The sources all appear to be sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, this is my first FL nomination since the List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay. It's the listings of the band's visual work, as their music videos section on Coldplay discography was getting way too big. All old sources were checked, corrected and replaced. Please feel free to note any detail I might have forgotten.

• I found it very hard to believe that Coldplay have only appeared on TV seven times in a career spanning more than 20 years, and needless to say they haven't. Here for example is them appearing on The Graham Norton Show in 2021, here is them appearing on the same show in 2016, here they are on it yet again (unsure of year), here they are on The Voice in 2021, here they are on The Tonight Show in 2021. I bet there are dozens more. Were you intending this section to only include occasions when they did more than just perform one song? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! I want to make a List of Live Performances page in the future, but that is going to take A LOT of work. Coldplay has performed live an insane amount of times, Everyday Life was their least promoted era and you can still find a lot of stuff, including the broadcast in Jordan (that one was included in Videography due to being a film, and their films are easier to track). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case maybe change the section header to something like "Major television appearances" or "notable television appearances" or something like that, as currently it does kinda imply that these are literally the only times Coldplay have appeared on TV...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed it to "Television appearances", in contrast with "Television performances". Anything else? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I will not screw this up

• "released 64 music videos, four video albums and four films," — consistency is needed per MOS:NUM
  • "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". The guidelines don't prohibit me from writing like I did. In fact, it's the most used way I have seen around discography and award pages.
• "appearing on multiple television shows throughout their career as well" — while I understand what this bit is trying to say, it feels quite awkward to me. Can it be reworded?
  • I've tried before, nothing good so far.
• ""In My Place" and "The Scientist", which was nominated" — which one was nominated?
  • Solved. It's "The Scientist".
• "campaign was then completed" — removed then as redundant
  • Solved.
• "anticipation for their fourth album Viva la Vida" — comma after album
  • Solved.
• "two versions of "Viva la Vida" available" — I think more context is needed for what "Viva La Vida" is, as I thought it was the album before clicking on the link
  • Album titles are in italic and song titles are in quotes, I think that's very much clear already.
• "The record also spawned" — ...what is "the record" referring to?
  • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The Mylo Xyloto record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven".
• "an interactive project" — can you clarify whether it's just the last one or all of them or something?
  • Solved.
• "(1979) which had its final" — comma before which
  • Solved.
• "following it with" — is "it" the song or the album?
  • I wrote that thinking about the song, but it also applies to the AHFOD album since "Adventure of a Lifetime" is the only video released prior to 4 December 2015.
• "The record's marketing campaign" — what is "the record"?
  • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The A Head Full of Dreams record had its campaign finished with "A Head Full of Dreams" and "Everglow".
• "Everyday Life (2019) had six music videos" — kinda awkward
  • Solved.
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works (such as albums, films or television shows) should be italicised in citations
  • I'm pretty sure all of them are in this list. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for three months without a single support vote; @ChrisTheDude and Pamzeis: are either of you willing to support or oppose? --PresN 01:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I totally forgot about this one. Took another look and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The last sentence in the first paragraph could do with a citation
  • The citation is on the video's description below.
• 'Meanwhile, X&Y (2005) spawned the singles "Speed of Sound", "Fix You", "Talk" and "The Hardest Part".' Feels a bit odd to be starting this sentence with 'Meanwhile' when the previous sentence is talking about an album that was released three years previously. The use of meanwhile makes it read like this happened concurrently, I'd swap meanwhile for a better opening that doesn't confuse the time gap between the albums.
  • Solved.
• 'Months later...' How many months later? This is a bit wishy-washy, I'd be more specific here, even saying the two versions of Vida la Vida were released in x month... etc.
  • Solved.
• The third paragraph has zero references. I know most of this is mostly referenced in the tables below, but I'd like to see a few references here. Christmas lights for example and instances when videos won an award.
  • Everything on the head is referenced in the tables, I don't see the need to crowd the text with them.
• Another sentence staring with 'Meanwhile' at the end of the fourth para. It reads oddly when we're talking about events that happened after those of the previous sentence.
  • Solved.
• The directors column should sort by surname
  • Solved.
• "Despite publishing the music video in their official website..." in should be on
  • Solved.
• "The band perform the song on a studio..." in a studio. On a studio would imply they're performing on top of the studio
  • Solved.
• " The music video was planned to include..." change planned to meant
  • Solved.
• 'Martin perform the song on a grand piano..." perform should be performs
  • Solved.
• "It has won a MTV Video Music Award for Best Rock Video." no need for has, just write 'It has won an MTV...'
  • Solved.
• "The music video combines live action puppetry, digitally painted sets and traditional animation to tell the story of a young girl lost in the sea and sailing towards the unknown, symbolising the memories she has of her father. It has won two silver prizes at the Clio Awards." should be lost at sea, and again simply 'It won...'
  • Solved.

That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not answering sooner, I assume the notification for your edit was lost in the middle of my e-mails mess. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've added some of the references from the tables to the lead as well, as I wasn't comfortable with the lack of citations in the lead. They can be easily duplicated, so just duplicating a few does no harm. All my concerns are addressed now. NapHit (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this nomination has been open way too long. I've looked through the list, and while I dislike some of the ways you've spanned the year and director columns, I'm good to promote. Source review passed as well. --PresN 14:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's the 15th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. In this particular year, a young up-and-comer called Elvis something-or-other had his first R&B chart-topper. I wonder whatever became of him.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find something saying so in MOS, but I think hyphenated ISBN's are preferred. I use Hyphenator.
• [3][4][5][6] - could either distributed on the preceding text; or WP:CITEBUNDLE could be used.
• "although his period of chart-topping success was short" - looks like he had a Juke Box number one in 1957; this wording suggested to me that he only topped the charts in 1956. I don't think it's wrong, but consider tweaking it.

Source review

• I checked all three non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector - no concerns.
• Sources all appear to be reliable.
• Optionally, IABot could be used to prevent WP:LINKROT.
• Spot checks on Billboard for 21 April; AllMusic re: "arguably the greatest and most influential of the '50s rock & roll singers"; All Music & BBC re:Presley statement; all fine.
• Seems like all info in the intro and captions is either directly cited, or based on cited info in the table.

Images

• Images are suitable. Captions and positioning are OK.
• Images are all PD or CC, with suitable licensing statements.
• Alt text for the Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers image could specify how many people are in the image. I think the alt text for the images is in line with other featured content, but you could consider amending it - see the comments about alt text at this peer review.

@BennyOnTheLoose: - many thanks for a very thorough review. All done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'll keep an eye on this nomination in case other reviewers identify anything significant that I missed. Great work again! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source and images reviews (as that wasn't clear above). Regards, 12:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Great work with this ongoing series. I do not have comments on prose. Well-written and in-depth. Support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 30 October 2022 (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, 24 October 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to give this article a complete rework by expanding/adding a substantial and informative lead, fixing formatting issues, and adding reliable sourcing. I've tailored the structure to FLs on submissions to the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film from countries such as Latvia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Judy Ann Santos's two films [...] were submitted" - worded like this it indicates that she has only ever made two films, which I don't believe is the case

I've reworded the caption to avoid confusion

• Refs after "screened for the jury" are out of numerical order

Fixed order

• Same after "precursor to the current category"

Fixed ref order

• "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films have been submitted for consideration" => "From 1956 until the establishment of the FAP in 1981, only four films were submitted for consideration"

Done

• "Since the FAP was founded, the Philippines has, on an irregular basis, submitted an entry to the Academy; Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, with no film submissions until 1995's Harvest Home.". Not sure this really works, as it hasn't been irregular for most of the last 40 years. I would suggest "After the FAP was founded, the Philippines submitted Of the Flesh in 1984 and This Is My Country in 1985, but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home. Since then, the FAP has submitted a film in most years."

Agreed, changed as suggested.

• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review ChrisTheDude, always appreciated. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Brillante Mendonza seems to be a director. If true I think you could replace the sentence in the caption with this: "Two films directed by Brillante Mendoza were submitted"

Added in the caption

• "but then made no submissions until 1995's Harvest Home" - The word "then" could probably be omitted from this sentence.

Removed

• Since a picture of Mendonza has been chosen to be a part of the infobox, I'm inclined to ask if he should be mentioned in the lead too?

Good point, I have added a mention in the lead.

• Alt texts for the pictures would be recommended, if that parameter is possible for all four.

Oh right, seemed to have forgot about this. ALT texts added

• Since none of the films got nominated, is it appropriate to include it as a column? A sentence like "None of the films were nominated" could probably be used as summary, no?

The lead mentions this In total, the Philippines has made 32 submissions to the category, but none have been nominated for an Oscar; and from the Results column in the table? Did you mean an additional summary elsewhere? I've tailored the structure to the most recent promotion—Latvia

I meant the Result column is redundant and could be removed in favour of one line somewhere that says "None of the submissions received nominations". Although that would be a lot of unnecessary work and I understand if you want to stick to the last promotion's format.

That's it from me after a few reads.--NØ 08:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk for your review MaranoFan. Above actioned the above, with one clarification on the last point. Let me know if I missed anything? --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No other concerns. It's a support from me!--NØ 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this list. I do not have any comments as I did not notice anything that required further improvement. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. Here is hoping that one day a move from the Philippines can get a nomination (and maybe even a win) in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations all appear to be from high-quality, reliable sources, particularly in this context, and they are appropriately formatted aside from some nitpicks I have below.
• I would recommend archiving Citation 22. It is not required for a FLC, but I think it would be helpful to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.

Strangely, I ran the archiving bot twice and couldn't get FN22 archived. I was able to do it manually though.

• The archiving bot is absolutely amazing, but sometimes it can have its moments. Thank you for handling this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is super nitpick-y, but in some citation titles, the film title is in italics while it is not in other instance. I would compare Citation 19 and Citation 20 for this difference. It is a small difference, but I would be consistent with one way or the other, and either way would be appropriate based on your personal preference.

A lapse on my part, film titles are now all italicized in the sources.

It happens to the best of us. If it helps at all, I was only really aware of this after years of working on Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done a spot check and all the information appears to be verified in the citations.

I do not have a lot to say for my source review. Everything appears to be in shape, but before I pass this, I want to get your opinion about some of my points (even though they are again nothing major and would not hold up this review in any way, shape, or form). Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Aoba47 for doing a dual review (content and source) and for your support. Much appreciate you taking the time. I do hope one day we get that nomination nod (fingers crossed). I have addressed your points above. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. I am just glad that I could help. I decided to do a source review to hopefully help get this FLC promoted in the near future because it seems to be heading in that direction. This FLC passes my source review. I wish you the best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the four photos used in the lead image have appropriate free licenses, and the image itself has an appropriate caption and alt text for each of its photos. Everything looks okay in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 23 October 2022 (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, 10 October 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's the 14th in my series of nominations of number one lists from Billboard's R&B charts. Look at some of the names on this list - Chuck Berry! Fats Domino! Bo Diddley! We're starting the motherlode of early rock and roll here. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest adding a "pictured" in to images taken more than a couple of years away from 1955, e.g. Bo Diddley.

@BennyOnTheLoose: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All the info without inline citations from the intro is cited in the table as far as I can see.
• Sources all look reliable.
• Image positioning and captions look fine to me. You could consider expanding the alt text for the Platters image to say how many people are in the picture.
• Should "disk jockeys" be wikilinked? I have no idea how widely this term is known, globally. I'm happy to go with precedent.
  • Great work, thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BennyOnTheLoose: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Nothing else from me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on continuing with these lists. I have a lot of respect for you for doing so and it is really helpful for readers interested in this genre of music so thank you for all the time and work you put in them. My comments are below:

• For File:Chuck Berry 1957 (square crop).jpg, the eBay link is dead, but the photo front link is active so it should be fine. I would recommend archiving this link though to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, especially since one of the sources links is already dead.
• File:Roy Hamilton 1957.JPG has similar issues but the front and back links also appear dead.
• This is more of a note, but I appreciate the WP:Red link included in the list as it is always helpful to point out areas where a potential article can be created in the future.
• For the Billboard citations, I would specify they are accessed via Google Books.
• I would archive all the web citations, such as Citations 4, 5, and 6 just to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FLC.
• I would create a "Notes" subsection for Note A. I know it might seem rather silly to create a whole subsection just for a single note, but it does seem odd to just have it near the bottom of the page without anything.

I hope these comments are helpful. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. There is still the issue with the Roy Hamilton image links, but since I am not super well-versed in images, I will leave that up to your discretion. I support the FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I just removed the Hamilton image from this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another drive-by comment: I think I prefer what you've done with List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1957 in the first paragraph ... you take four sentences there to cover what's covered in the first sentence here. Do you have a preference one way or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: - changed this one to match that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Aoba's comments:

• Sources are reliable. No issues with formatting that I could see.
• publisher=AllMusic should be work=AllMusic, I think.
• Spot checks on January 1 and June 25, selected on the basis that I saw artists wiht hits in those weeks play live, were fine.

AllMusic changed to a work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. (Other reviewers, please ping me if I missed anything.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 9 October 2022 (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, 3 October 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 02:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a long string of animal lists, I'm taking a break to resume a project I last touched in 2019: a series of lists of games from 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic/Firaxis/Blizzard/Relic). There's not much of a theme to these lists beyond "in the right time period for me to have played at least one of their games when I was younger", but they all have their own stories. This one is part one of a duology of the rise and fall of Peter Molyneux, famous for being the creative lead behind a lot of amazing—and amazingly overhyped—video games.

This one is the rise, about the video game studio started, appropriately enough, with the money made by hyping a pack of lies about what his software company could do. They hit it into the big leagues almost immediately with Populous, the biggest seller of 1989 and still one of the best-selling PC games 30+ years later. From there they had a wildly successful 6 years, at which point Molynuex et al sold out to Electronic Arts for, to be fair, an absurd amount of money plus a vice presidentship despite having no real ability to run international businesses. Two years later Molyneux and a lot of the creative staff were gone, and Bullfrog—termed the most innovative and imaginative video game company in the world just prior to being bought—hung on making sequels for another four years before getting closed.

This list has a big section of cancelled games, because of a pair of Molyneux-isms: he announces games way too early, and also hangs on to projects even if they're not working, sometimes for years. So, we have sources and even articles on projects that never became products. If you've heard of Molyneux in this century, it's likely for what he got up to after this company—in this era, though, he was a king, who designed a series of innovative projects developed with firm technological constraints but not financial ones. I've tried to shake off the rust for this list type and follow my prior patterns, so I hope you enjoy it, and thanks for reviewing. --PresN 02:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and lead the company" => "and led the company"
• "Bullfrog released a further five games after his departure through 2001" - as this article is about a British subject I presume it is written in British English and over here we don't use the expression "through [date]". Change this to "between his departure and 2001"
• Where the first note gives multiple genres, there's inconsistency as to whether the second is capitalised, eg we have both "Real-time strategy game, God game" and "Real-time strategy game, god game"
• That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 16:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Cowlibob (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just like the lionhead studios article, it looks like the quality of a featured list.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source/image review – The page doesn't have any images, so that part is easy. All of the references are reliable and well-formatted. I will note that the script I've installed that attempts to flag unreliable sources is giving a yellow caution highlighting for GameSpot links, for some reason. This surprises me since GameSpot is one of the more reliable gaming sites. Maybe the script thinks it is GameStop instead? It isn't a concern for this review, but I wanted to pass it along as the video game project might want to inquire as to why that is happening. The link-checker tool is flagging a PlayStation.com link as being dead, but I can't see it in the article anywhere. Please double-check that I didn't miss it in there and repair/replace it if you find it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: I'm not sure why Gamespot gets flagged- Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has it as reliable. It may be because their game database shouldn't be used directly, which the text there notes. There is a playstation.com link in ref 45, but it's dead and marked as such and archived. --PresN 00:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was the one. Happy to see that it had been archived; not sure why the tool didn't pick up on it. Either way, I'd say that both reviews have been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (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, 3 October 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Near...far..." it didn't matter where you were in 1998. This song was inescapable even if you switched to Spanish-language radio stations. Anyways, in 1998, the chart went unpublished for two weeks because of the damage to radio monitoring systems in Puerto Rico by Hurricane Georges. So I'm interested to see if how I wrote it works. Erick (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, how weird that Latin pop radio played that dreary Celine Dion song so much that it actually got to number one on this chart. But that's nothing to do with this review :-)
• "were not published on the weeks of October 10 and October 17" - I would change this to "were not published in the issues dated October 10 and October 17"
• "It remained on the top position for five more weeks" => "It remained in the top position for five more weeks"
• "Ponce had established himself as a soap opera actor on his entertainment career before becoming a musical artist" - I think just "Ponce had established himself as a soap opera actor before becoming a musical artist" would suffice
• "Estefan was the only female act to have more than one chart-topper" - might be worth mentioning all the acts with multiple number ones here and then point out that Gloria was the only female one. Seems a bit odd to highlight her and not mention the others at all.
• "Ricky Martin [...] was named the best-performing song of the year" - it wasn't Ricky that was named best-performing song of the year, so change the "and" after the song's title to ",which"
• "having spent three weeks on this position" => "having spent three weeks in this position"
• "Martin is the first artist in the chart's history to replace himself at number one when" => "Martin was the first artist in the chart's history to replace himself at number one when"
• "Alejandro Sanz is the only other artist with their first number one "Amiga Mía"" - he wasn't, because you then go on to say that OV7 had their first and only number one this year. So rephrase to "Alejandro Sanz also gained his first number one with "Amiga Mía""
• Missing quote mark on Te Quiero Tanto, Tanto"
• Is telenovela normally shown in italics? It looks a bit odd with that word and then the title all in italics - it makes it look a bit like the word telenovela is part of the title
• Eso es todo :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Yeah I remember the Titanic mania as well having the soundtrack for it and all that, lol. Anyways, I looked at the article for telenovela and you're right, it's not italicized so I removed the italics. I believe I got everything else as well. Erick (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Billboard magazine should be italicized in the first sentence of the article.
• I also suggest adding the fact that "My Heart Will Go On" was just the second English song in the chart's history that reached the top spot. (The first one was Selena's "I Could Fall In Love".) Source

• That's it, great work! آرمین هویدایی (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- آرمین هویدایی (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be an inconsistency with (pictured) throughout the images provided.
• Billboard should be italicized.
• That's all I have during my read. Once these have been addressed, I will support this nomination. Best – jona ✉ 13:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to speak on behalf of the nom but presumably "(pictured)" is in the Ponce image caption because there are two people mentioned in that caption so it's to avoid the (admittedly slight but still theoretical) possibility of people not knowing which one is pictured..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude@AJona1992 True, but looking at back, there's already an image of Fernández before Ponce's, so I guess it's fine in this case. Erick (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, just strike that comment then. Best – jona ✉ 20:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – As with the similar lists I've looked at, the references are reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All four of the photos have appropriate free licenses. While alt text isn't strictly required, only one of the four images currently has it and it would be nice to see it added to the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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