Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2023

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm testing the waters a bit, because regulars here tell me that no outline has yet reached FL status. I'm hoping to change that, and to get the first featured list for our relatively new lichen task force. As well as informing our readers, this outline is helping us to figure out what articles we still need to create. It's all referenced, but I am wondering whether the lead should be in outline form (as suggested in the outline documentation) or a full lead (as suggested by the FL criteria). Open to suggestions, and looking forward to hearing what others think. MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Alright, not really sure how to review an outline, but I'll have a stab at this.
• This looks pretty comprehensive and doesn't really have much prose to review, so pretty close to a support; my only comments are that the images all need alt text and that the spot test image could use the more descriptive caption present at the article to better contextualize what's going on. AryKun (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AryKun! I'll get those sorted ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun, I've made the changes you suggested. Can you please have a look and tell me if they meet your approval? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, support on prose. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Doesn't look like there's any prose issues, so I'll do a source review- no spotcheck, just looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 26 needs page number; ditto 44, 46, 54, 55, 56
• What's ref 60 pointing to? As far as I can see in the "References" section, there's no British Lichen Society 2022a

I'm not sure why that wasn't working. I had a "ref=" parameter that had the same name as one of the article subsections, and for whatever reason, it was going to that subsection instead of the reference! I changed the ref name and it's working now. (The ref was already there.) MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some ISBNs are not properly hyphenated, like Baron 1999; https://ataraxic.net/isbn-tool/ can be used to convert them to proper isbns

Done. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kraichak 2018a: no doi? No JSTOR? Not even an SC2ID? If none apply, I'd be surprised if there were no webpage available

Added DOI, S2CID and Researchgate link. MeegsC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC - That's all from me, nice work on the prose. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk! I'll work on fixing these and will let you know when I'm done. MeegsC (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, any update? AryKun (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry AryKun! I've just spent a month in the field and got back late last night. I plan to finish this up in the next few days. MeegsC (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun and MyCatIsAChonk, I've added page numbers for all but ref 56. The online version I used before is now offline, so I'm trying to find someone with access to it who can help me determine that number. Will let you know as soon as I can! Does everything else look okay? MeegsC (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good so far, thanks for the notif! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay MyCatIsAChonk and AryKun, I've finished adding page numbers for all refs that have them (i.e. everything other than websites). Anything else? MeegsC (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

I was ignoring this FLC for weeks because I've never read an outline before... then I read this one, and loved it. It's a comprehensive guide of where to find most of the articles about lichen, arranged into a carefully curated half-list, half-article. So now I have some comments.

• First off, given the definition-style lede, it might be worthwhile to add the pronunciation of lichen there too.
• The "What is a lichen?" section is confusing- it doesn't really explain, and for some reason it drills down to family level when lichen are apparently multiple classes.
  • SilverTiger12, I've tried to expand this a bit to better explain. Does this help? Or do I need to add more?
    • Yes, it makes much more sense now that you've explained which bionts fall where. Thank you.
• Nature of lichens/Morphology: these are very technical terms, not very accessible to a layperson. Please read through this section again and consider if anything can be phrased more clearly, a little less technical/jargon-y.
  • There's a template {{Plural form}}, please implement that in the morphology section.

    I didn't know about that template! Thanks for that.

• Periods. Please put these at the ends of the various definitions (not just in the morphology section_; the current usage is inconsistent.
• There are some lists of lichen species by genus; I request that you link to these in the Genera subsection. I.e. 468. Lecanora (list)

  What a great idea! Done.

• Species subsection - is there no more recent source for the number of lichen species than 2009?
• Growth forms: calicioid, and cladoniform are listed here as subtypes, but the main article indicates the situation is more complicated than that. Meanwhile on the main article, I was confused when areolate and placodioid appeared to be treated as types rather than subtypes (though that is out of the scope of this FLC).

  Yeah, a lot of that section (and the lichen article in general!) needs cleaning up. Lichen growth forms is more recent and comprehensive.

• Lichens by substrate: I'm a bit confused by the pattern of type and subtype here: Is endophloeodal the umbrella for all plant-tissue-dwelling lichens, and thus, would not bryophilous, corticolous, foliicolous, and lignicolous be subtypes of it?
  • Please clarify that lignifcolous grow on wood stripped of bark.
  • Why is ramicolous the only direct subtype of endophloeodal? By the limited definitions given, it'd be a subtype of corticolous.

    I've removed endophloedal as a separate list item, per comment below; it can be added as a subsection in several appropriate articles (orticolous, foliicolous, ramicolous, etc.). It had been indented incorrectly, and should have been on the same level as "ramicolous".

  • Please change omnicolous' definition to capable of growing on multiple types of substrates and I question whether a blanket statement that all omnicolous lichen can grow on manmade structures is necessary and necessarily accurate.
    • I've changed this to on a variety of substrates. Does that suffice?
      • Yes, that works.
• Not really part of this FLC, but three of the lists of lichen by location are missing the "List of.." from their titles, leading to minorly annoying inconsistencies.

  I've moved two of the articles to "List of..." titles. The third (Lichens of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)) isn't currently a list, so I didn't move that one.

• Is Fossil lichens intended to one day be a list of fossil lichens? Because if so, change to List of fossil lichens.
• I recommend changing the redlinked Lichens in popular culture to Cultural depictions of lichens (or another title more appropriate); "in popular culture" articles tend to be magnets for cruft and are implicitly biased towards recent/modern culture. If it isn't depictions so much as uses, then uses of lichens.
• Is "Trouble with Lichen" really that relevant to the topic of lichen as a whole? Either way, book titles should be italicized.

And that's all for now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two further notes after doing some digging:

• It looks like, back in August on the lichen task force's talk page, the completeness of the list of lichen genera was questioned. Has this been rectified?
• There's a list of common names of lichen genera that isn't listed anywhere on this outline, and should be.

Now that should be all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SilverTiger12! I'll get working on these, and will strike out what I've completed. MeegsC (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've responded to your queries above, and overall I believe this outline has improved. My only remaining concern is the one Esculenta, actually, raised about the completeness of the list of lichen genera. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my concerns about the genera list's comprehensiveness have essentially been addressed (below), I am going to go ahead and Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Esculenta

• I suggest that Endophloeodal lichen doesn't need a redlink, and a link to the glossary definition will suffice for Wikipedia; at most, maybe a separate section in the article corticolous lichen. A Google Scholar search of the term (enclosed in quotes) brings 0 hits, while without quotes, it's less than a couple of hundred–typically mentions of the word used as a descriptive term in lichen descriptions. Esculenta (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Esculenta:, since you were the one who previously raised this concern- is the list of lichen genera in this outline up-to-date in your opinion? I don't really know how to go about checking. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's probably very close! MeegsC has added many genera since I mentioned this; the only way I could know for sure is to spend several hours comparing the genus list in the outline to the set {Category:Lichen genera + redlinked genera in family articles} (which I'm sure MeegsC has already done). Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still working on checking, with another couple of years to go. I plan to be done by the end of the weekend. MeegsC (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Okay, I think I've finally finished – though undoubtedly I'll stumble across a few more as we clean up various lichen family articles over the coming months and years. MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the images used in the article appear to have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We carry on through the 1970s with the latest offering in this series, as for the first time the P-Funk mothership landed at the top of the chart. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• After three weeks in the top spot the single was displaced by "Bootzilla" -- comma after top spot
• "Theme Song from 'Which Way Is Up'" and "It's You That I Need" respectively -- comma after "It's You That I Need"
• For the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
• Perhaps the info about "Serpentine Fire" should be mentioned in the lead instead, as it doesn't really serve a purpose being stated as a "key" and never utilized in the table, or you could also add an image of Earth, Wind and Fire and use it as a caption?
• That's all I have. Excellent work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - thank you for your review and your kind words. All the above points have been actioned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Great job. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• No song went on Billboard's year-end soul chart, as seen in past years?
  • @MyCatIsAChonk: See the Earth Wind and Fire image caption (and related comment from Pseud above, which led to this edit.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Whitburn only needs to be linked in the first template under "Works cited"

ChrisTheDude, all done, lovely work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The 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) 04:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - pass: The images are appropriately licensed in line with the ones on prior lists in this series.
• Source review - pass: The sources used follow a consistent format and are reliable for the purposes they are used. There is no uncited claim in the article.
• Support--NØ 09:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, as usual. Happy to support. (It Looks like Sean O'Hagan (journalist) could be wiki-linked.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third National Football League FLC, coming after List of Houston Texans seasons. This list documents the 27 seasons played by the Baltimore Ravens in the NFL. Unlike the Texans, they've had a little more success. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Over their 27 seasons in the NFL, the Ravens have become a successful team, compiling the third highest regular season record among active franchises" - this makes it sound/could be interpreted as saying they have the third best record over those 27 seasons but (if I understand the source correctly) they have the third best record of all time among active franchises, some of which have existed since the 1920s. I would suggest rewording to "Over their 27 seasons in the NFL, the Ravens have become a successful team; their record of [insert all the numbers here] is the third-best all-time regular season record among active franchises"
• "The Ravens have won two Super Bowl championships in franchise history" - I think the last three words are redundant as obviously the wins came during franchise history
• "In addition to their their two Super Bowl wins" - there's a duplicate word in there
• Any chance you could move the Poe and Lewis images to the right of the table? Having them where there at present causes (on my screen at least) massive whitespace below the key. The Flacco and Harbaugh images could go there too
• Alternatively, moving the awards key above the table might reduce the whitespace issue
• Poe image caption needs a comma after Edgar Allen Poe
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude:  Done all, except for the image stuff. The images actually are aligned right, however, since the table is so large they cannot go to the right of the table without causing massive issues on smaller screens. When I test on my smaller screen, I see a little whitespace but nothing glaring. Is there any way you can send me a screenshot of what's going on? (Discord, email, etc.) Or at least if you can tell me your screen size that would be helpful. If you could see how List of Houston Texans seasons is formatted and if it's better for you that would be helpful too :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I guess the whitespace isn't that big a deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I ended up just removing most images, I also changed the format so that the keys are close to each other. The images aren't really required (none of the other season FLs have them) so I think this solution works, but if someone disagrees feel free to revert. I'm not sure how widespread that whitespace issue is, but if it's on most smaller laptop screens like I suspect it is probably best to avoid having it since many may experience it. If anyone knows of a way to cause line breaks in tables for small screens without forcing them on large screens, that would work as well but I don't think that's possible. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a drive-by comment, but if you utilized the {{Abbr}} template for the awards, you could lose the whole awards key which takes up a ton of space in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I'm missing something, but when you wikilink an abbreviation, the abbreviation won't display, only the linked page. So it seems to be better to have the key. Plus that key helps a little with whitespace issues on smaller screens since I want to keep at least one image lol. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, {{Abbrlink}} is the correct template. This displays the tooltip even with the link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done: Considering that image might get deleted anyway, it's hardly a reason. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Is the table headers being unsortable standard? I don't see why some columns would be intentionally unsortable

ULPS, nothing else from me, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: From my quick checks, none of the other season FLs have sortable table headers. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support then, nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

• "The team began play in 1996 as a result of former Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell's decision to move the Browns to Baltimore." - source needed as it's not covered by ESPN.
• "the third-best all-time regular season record" - I think this should be clarified that it's their win-loss percentage.
• "fourth best playoff record" - same thing that this should be clarified as win-loss percentage.
• A source to show that the 2012 Divisional Playoffs was 2OT is needed.
• Source needed to show Greg Roman was Assistant Coach of the Year was 2019.
• Similarly, duplicate Assistant Coach of the Year award for 2019 needs to be removed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrLinkinPark333: I think I got everything :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - thank you for the quick changes :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The lead photo has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text, unlike this mental image, which I will forever consider inappropriate. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a Pats fan, so I'll always have a few inappropriate mental images of the Giants ;) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Adding to the spot-check that was done earlier, source reliability and formatting both look fine throughout the list of references. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 12:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got a suggestion to nominate Germany for a FLC in one of the previous nominations. I got it in shape faster than I thought, luckily the article was already quite extensive so I just had to fix the map and rewrite some descriptions which were copy-paste from the source earlier. Standard style. A long one this time, but luckily the tentative list is short. I suppose India is coming next, which is even longer, overall. The nomination for Latvia is seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 12:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn, this is a big one. I'll look into the main list later. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections. GeraldWL 05:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long one indeed. I think I will wait until you are through the list and fix the issues in one sitting :) Tone 15:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Feel free to look at 'em now :) GeraldWL 03:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am through. I think I solved all. Thank you, very good comments. Tone 10:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-checked the list and it looks all resolved now! Happy to support another part of this fascinating series. GeraldWL 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• The most recent addition were four sites in 2021 - was four sites? Or should addition be plural?
  • Ha, this was outdated, fixed.
• The use of "pictured" is inconsistent; IMO, it should be in every box to clarify what's being shown. If not that, then it must be added to places like Pilgrimage Church of Wies, which has no "pictured" in the desc despite being a photo of the structure itself
  • Well, I am using this wording if it is not obvious what is on the photo, like, if there are five buildings listed and I show one. If it is just one church, it is kind of redundant.
• The ironworks that operated until 1986 to produce pig iron. - this is an incomplete sentence; it's fine in a caption, but as far as I can tell all the other descs use full sentences
• the buildings of Shaft 12 are distinguished from architectural point of view. - from an architectural POV?
• some of which have been renovated in the 19th century - some of which were renovated?
• The Roland, dating to 1404, is a statue of a knight, representing Roland, knight of Charlemagne, that symbolizes freedom. - this sentence contains way too many commas; I'd be much easier to read if you put it all together "The 1404 statue Roland is a statue of a knight representing knight of Charlemagne Roland, who symbolizes freedom."
• The sites in Germany and the Netherlands were inscribed to the World Heritage List in 2009, the property in Denmark was added in 2014 - missing a conjunction after the comma
• They consititute one of the largest historical ensembles of warehouses in the world, together with related port infrastructure. - typo in "consititute"; also, "together with related port infrastructure" is an odd addendum to the sentence since the first bit is about large warehouses- if you feel it's necessary to include, move it to the start of the sentence: Along with related port infrastructure, they constitute..."
• The buildings of the colony (the Wedding Tower from 1908 and one of the exhibition halls pictured) - which hall? From what I see in the photo, only one hall is pictured
  • There are several halls, one of them is pictured. I think this is clear enough.

Tone, all done- very nice work as usual! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you, I am through with checking. --Tone 05:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - btw, if you get any time, would appreciate any comments here; thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "which was designated a World Heritage in Danger in July 2006" - I don't think "a World Heritage in Danger" works. Suggest "which was added to the List of World Heritage in Danger in July 2006"
• "It serves as a burial place of German emperors for almost 300 years" => "It served as a burial place of German emperors for almost 300 years"
• "They are the prominent example of a large princely residence" => "They are a prominent example of a large princely residence"
• "monopolised trade in much of the Northern Europe until the 16th century" => "monopolised trade in much of Northern Europe until the 16th century"
• "additional areas were addedd to the site in 1992 and 1999" => "additional areas were added to the site in 1992 and 1999"
• "This site comprises six buildigns" => "This site comprises six buildings"
• "Among the many artists and writers" => "Among many artists and writers"
• "majority of the today's structure dates to the 19th century." => "majority of today's structure date to the 19th century."
• "home to the species such as" => "home to species such as"
• "the factory manufacturing shoe last" => "the factory manufacturing shoe lasts"
• "The famous feature of the choir are" => "The famous feature of the choir is"
• "The latter were for generations prevented to practice their traditions" => "The latter were for generations prevented from practising their traditions"
• "the site was placed to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2006" => "the site was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2006" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! Tone 10:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adebayor is a Togolese former footballer who played for the Togo national team for almost two decades, he also played for European giants such as Arsenal, Manchester City and Real Madrid. With the national team he scored 32 goals in 87 caps (excluding a non-FIFA rec cap, according to the RSSSF), cementing himself as arguably the greatest football export from Togo.

I created this list a few months ago and I now believe it is FL standard. This is the 7th list of international goals I've nominated for featured status and I think these are almost always a speedy review due to their simplicity. Thanks in advance. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "87 FIFA recognised" => "87 FIFA-recognised" (also in the image caption)
• "He made his international debut against Zambia on 8 July 2000 in a FIFA World Cup qualification match, he scored" - comma before "he scored" should be a semi-colon
• "qualification win against Swaziland (Eswatini since 2018) on 11 October 2008, he scored four goals in the match" - so should that one
• "Adebayor helped Togo qualify for their first and only FIFA World Cup" - I would change that to simply "their first FIFA World Cup", as it might not be their only one forever
• "With the remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies." => "The remainder of his goals, five, have come in friendlies."
• "Adebayor scored in his final game for Togo against Benin in March 2019, he later" - comma should be a semi-colon
• "helped glorify Togolese football" - I really don't think that "glorify" is the right word here. I would suggest "helped raise the profile of Togolese football"
• "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012, it was not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but it is for the Togolese Football Federation." => "Does not include the match against Burkina Faso on 14 August 2012. The match is not considered a full A-international match by FIFA, but is by the Togolese Football Federation."
• That's what I got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All addressed. Cheers @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk/Source review

I see no issues with the content and prose, so great job! I'll do a source review while I'm at it- no spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is AfroSport Now reliable?
• All the links to National Football Teams are showing up dead for me. If that's the case for you too, add "dead" to the url-status= parameter

Idiosincrático, I got nothing else, very nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure on the AfroSport Now citation as it seems to be a relatively new outlet, I've changed the phrasing a bit and replaced it with a few other sources including Sports Illustrated, Goal and Vanguard Nigeria, which is seemingly rather reputable. As for the National football teams sources, each of the links are working for me and the website is working very well, its a site used commonly on these types of articles. Perhaps the site is geoblocked for where you live, or maybe an ad-blocker? Cheers @MyCatIsAChonk. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Phikia (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davor Šuker is a Croatian former professional footballer who represented both the Croatia and Yugoslavia national teams during the 1990s and early 2000s. He only made two appearances for Yugoslavia and as of nominating he is Croatia's all time top scorer with 45 goals. I had only created his list of international goals recently, but I'm very confident that this list meets FL standard. Thanks in advance :) Idiosincrático (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Add Template:Use British English or otherwise appropriate
• Wl striker; could be to an appropriate wikipedia page, or perhaps wikitionary has an entry
• it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, the team previously had not played a match since 1956. - some sort of conjunction is needed after the comma; something like "since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, as the team previously"
• Wl hat-trick
• Remove wl from France, since it's already a well-known place
• Image caption: Šuker scored two international hat-tricks for Croatia, they were scored against Estonia and Australia in 1995 and 1998 respectively. - replace the somma with a semicolon

Idiosincrático, that's all I got, nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @MyCatIsAChonk, all addressed :) Idiosincrático (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lovely job! By the way, if you get any time, would appreciate any comments at this FLC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s, as the team previously had not played a match since 1956." => "it was Croatia's second game since reforming the national football association in the early 1990s; the team previously had not played a match since 1956."
• "He made his official debut for Croatia on 22 October 1992 against Mexico, during the friendly match at the Stadion Maksimir he scored a brace" - the comma after Mexico should be a comma. Also, why not just say he scored two goals, rather than the slightly slangy "a brace"? If you are really keen to use the term "brace", please wikilink it, as I am reasonably sure people who don't follow football really closely will have no idea what it means.
• "In combination with his impressive club career" - this doesn't really work, as you don't say what his club career is being considered in combination with. I would suggest changing it to "Based on his international performances and his impressive club career...."
• "Does not include match for Croatia against Romania on 22 December 1990, the friendly was not recognised by FIFA" => "Does not include match for Croatia against Romania on 22 December 1990, which was not recognised by FIFA"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All addressed, I assumed that you meant a semi-colon after Mexico for your second suggestion, Cheers @ChrisTheDude. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did indeed :-) Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phikia

• I think {{Serbia national football team}} should be removed from the article. Davor Šuker played for Yugoslavia and Croatia national teams. He did not represent Serbia. -- Phikia (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of doing the same, but as the Serbia FA inherited the results and statistics of both Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia & Mont, I decided to add it to the template. The template also includes the result history of the Yugoslav national teams such as their famous 1930 World Cup 4th place. I think it would be a good idea to clarify that Yugoslav date/results are included in the template, I'll add a note on it now... Idiosincrático (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Phikia, are you content with the changes to the template? It's a far better reflection of Yugoslavia/Serbia's football heritage. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay in responding. I still feel that Template:Serbia national football team should be removed from this article. Davor Šuker made 68 appearances for Croatia from 1990 to 2002; he then served as the president of the Croatian Football Federation from 2012 to 2021. Croatia–Serbia football rivalry is listed in Template:Serbia national football team. I think it's weird that Davor Šuker is also listed in Template:Serbia national football team. -- Phikia (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phikia: Done. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support -- Phikia (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – Both of the photos used in the article have appropriate free licenses and captions. While maybe not strictly an FL requirement, it would be nice to see alt text added to the images for greater accessibility. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done @Giants2008. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tapaculos already has three supports, so here we are with our next order of birds. Cranes are definitely more interesting than tapaculos, and more importantly, had up-to-date IUCN refs on their articles instead of me having to go out and format 60 different references manually (the joys of editing, I tell you). Thanks for reviewing! AryKun (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World and HBW and BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist should be italicized
  • Done.
• Header: Genus Grus – Brisson, 1760 – 8 species - Grus is linked to a disambig page
  • Fixed.
• The top image should have no period at the end of its caption, since the caption isn't a complete sentence
  • Done.

AryKun, that's all, lovely work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, addressed all. AryKun (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - if you get any time, I'd appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two Tigers

Some quick comments, nothing too major:

• Ref. 1 uses a different format
  • Changed to Cite journal
• Images need alt text (the maps aren't critical, but the pictures of cranes should briefly describe appearances)
  • Added, I think maps don't need alts because the range description provides a sufficient alternative
• If BirdLife International is going to only be linked once in references, it should be at the first occurrence (ref. 3)
  • I currently count 3 such links – either link only 1 or all of them
    • Linked all.

– RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• RunningTiger123, see replies inline above. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another list! And of some very striking birds, too.

• First off, I suggest you change the section heading for the list proper from "Cranes" to "Gruids" to match previous lists.
  • Done.
• Cranes fly with their necks extended outwards instead of bent into an S-shape and their long legs outstretched. Why is this significant? Does it differentiate them from, say, storks or herons? You might want to note why this fact needs saying.
  • Added that it helps tell them apart from herons; I'd like a better reference for that, but most proper field guides assume that you know this.
• The cladogram is a bit big; I'd say extend it horizontally so the names aren't being pushed down a line but I understand that that involves technical aspects out of your expertise.
  • Expanded.
• Why doesn't the Siberian crane have a range map? There's one in their article.
  • Added.
• All the sources look good, a spot check reveals no issues, and there is (unsurprisingly) no copyvio per Earwig.

Cheers! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • SilverTiger12, addressed all. AryKun (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support and pass source review. Cheers, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After bringing Angeline Quinto's list of songs and awards to FL status, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography by adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted the tables, and thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Other songs from the album were also released as soundtracks for television shows" - I would say "Other songs from the album were also used on the soundtracks of television shows" would probably be more correct
• "In 2018, Quinto was featured in Dingdong Avanzado's single" => "In 2018, Quinto was featured on Dingdong Avanzado's single"
• For the section currently headed "Usages as soundtracks", I would simply this to "Soundtrack appearances"
• That's all I got. Great work as ever from our leading Filipino pop contributor :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude, all actioned. Appreciate the very kind words ;) Hope to see more contributors in this space as well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Under "Soundtrack appearances", the song "And I Love You So" is linked to a different song- is this a cover of that song? Clarify

Yes, the theme of the show is a cover version of the Don McLean song.

• Perhaps include her songs and awards in a "See also" section?

Added

• Add Template:Use American English or other preference

Added

Pseud 14, nothing else from me, fantastic work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review MyCatIsAChonk. All comments actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "including four as featured artist" - Shouldn't this be "including four as a featured artist"?
• "In 2011, she won the television talent show Star Power and was signed to a record deal with Star Music" - I'd go for the simpler phrasing "In 2011, she won the television talent show Star Power and signed a record deal with Star Music"
• ""Saan Darating ang Umaga" for Budoy, "Hanggang" for Walang Hanggan, "Nag-iisang Bituin" for Princess and I, and "Kung Ako'y Iiwan Mo" for the series of the same name" - Were they used "for" the shows or "in" the shows? I could be wrong here

I think "in" is much more appropriate as you suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Would be more than happy to support once these are addressed. I've put up an FAC in case you are interested.--NØ 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review MaranoFan. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Did a media review for your FAC and will endeavor to review the prose soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--NØ 21:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It is pleasing to see you are working on another discography of a Filipino artist! I am happy to review. I will be reviewing this revision.

• I see a lot of capitalization issues with the title of works, especially those written in Filipino:
  • "Patuloy Ang Pangarap", "Sana Darating ang Umaga", "Kunin Mo Na Ang Lahat Sa Akin", and others – There are inconsistencies in the capitalization of Filipino articles. Since the Filipino article "ang" is used as an article here (an equivalent to the English word "the"), it should be written in lowercase, the same as for other entries in the lead and the list (MOS:TITLECAPS).
  • Filipino prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., sa, pero) in song titles, such as "Kunin Mo Na Ang Lahat Sa Akin" and "Parang Tayo, Pero Hindi" should be written in lowercase.
  • In the "Singles / As featured artist" section, the preposition "With" in "In Love With You" should be written in lowercase (MOS:5LETTER).
  • In the "Soundtrack appearances" section...
    • ...the letter "l" in "lahat" in "Kunin Mo Na Ang lahat Sa Akin" should be capitalized.
    • ..."Nag-Iisang Bituin" should be written as "Nag-iisang Bituin".
    • ..."Maghihintay Sa'Yo" should be written as "Maghihintay Sa'yo".
    • ..."Fall In Love Again" should be written as "Fall in Love Again".
• Is there any particular reason why Ladzkie is all capitalized ("Aking Pagmamahal" featuring LADZKIE)? I think it can just be written in title case instead, the same for the other entry in the list (MOS:ToW/TE).
• Under the "Albums" section, the sources provided do not seem to verify or mention whether all her albums are released in CD and LP formats.

The media itself is the primary source (i.e. Daya discography, Julia Michaels discography). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. Crossed out.

• I would remove the second link to PARI (specifically the one in the same row as Fall in Love Again) in the table under the "Studio albums" section since it is not a sortable table, and it's linked to the previous row, similar to what has been done to other FLs.
• The table in the "Reissues" section is titled List of reissues, with sales figures and certifications, where no sales figures and certifications are present. Just title it List of reissues.
• Under the "Promotional singles" section, I think it will be misleading if you use rowspan for the Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs since it gives the impression that those songs belong to the same album when they are not. Each is part of a similarly titled album released at a different time. I suggest removing the rowspan and adding the year after the album's title (i.e., Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs 2013 and Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs 2014, respectively).
• This one is just a question: how do you identify if a song is a single / promotional single?

Per WP:PROMOSINGLE there is no black and white distinction in the day and age of streaming. But for this list, and consistency with previous work, they would fall under songs that have not receive the same amount of attention as a proper single, used in ad campaigns, or included in a compilation release. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will bear this in mind. Thanks!

This is my first time giving an entire review for an FLC, so feel free to object to any of my comments. Most of my comments are just about changes in capitalization by Filipino practice. This list is a solid list and deserves that star. Best of luck with your nomination! (P.S., Please do ping me once you are done in addressing them.) – Abacusada (t • c) 12:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Abacusada. All actioned. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abacusada: Anything else? Pseud 14 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pseud 14! Thanks for the courtesy ping, apologies for not replying immediately. You did missed some spots and I will leave it for you to do. For specifics: Some title of works still have Ang capitalized: "At Ang Pangarap", "Piliin Mo Ang Pilipinas", Sana Bukas Pa Ang Kahapon, and "Umiiyak Ang Puso". And I believe that should be it.

@Pseud 14: I forgot to sign, sorry. – Abacusada (t • c) 09:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abacusada: Done. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination. Great work! – Abacusada (t • c) 13:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The lead photo has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Vietnamese politics is exciting! Hopefully, you find this list as exciting as I do. This list is modelled on my former FL nominee 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

I know that communist politics, and Vietnamese politics more generally, is not the sexiest topic in the world, but I hope some of you will take your time to review it. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, are the alternates actually notable as a whole? This isn't a big table, why can't it just be merged with Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam? The External link lists both together and another is called "Portraits of 200 members of the XII Party Central Committee", and 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam has both full members and alternates listed together so I don't think this needs its own article or passes criterion 3c. Reywas92^Talk 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage of only the alternates, interviews with the alternates and articles on their training. Moreover, I took the decision to make them separate lists based on page constraint. Alternates are future leaders, or at least the Party's attempt to create future leaders of the Party and state. CC members are a whole different category and are elected based on representing of provinces, government ministries, and party positions, et cetera. More rules in this area also mean more information and less space to write it on (regarding the members of the 12th CC).

I could, of course, have nominated "Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" first, but I am already confident that that list will have as much text as the 12th Politburo based on already gathered material.

I am, therefore, very confident in my decision. But to prove you wrong I will begin writing the text for the "Members of the 12th CC" now during this nomination process to prove my point. TheUzbek (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See changes Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Still more changes ahead and I will expand the lead further (but not by adding new paragraphs). My point? It's good to have two separate lists. TheUzbek (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you never followed up your comment... TheUzbek (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I wasn't watching this page. You've improved the main list quite nicely, but I still don't see why the 1.5 paragraphs in the lead that are about the alternates and the small list of 20 people can't be included in the main list as well. Reywas92^Talk 04:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lead in a list can only be four paragraphs: the lead of the 12th members has already maxed out. I've increased the lead of the alternates again. Now its three paragraphs.

Its very simple: alternates and members do not hold the same posts and have different powers and different responsibilities.

Can you support the list as is now? TheUzbek (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You move prose out of the lead into a section – there's no restriction that the body many only be the table(s) itself. My other comments would be that simply saying "Undergraduate" or "Graduate" is not very meaningful so this column seems unnecessary, and you don't need background colors for females. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take a psychological break from this discussion.

The problem with discussing with you is that you've completely failed to answer why two different subjects should be on the same list. I've asked you, and you've failed completely to answer it. It is annoying so the least.

Why would I merge these two articles when they are two different topics? Why?

Graduate and undergraduate are the terms that the Party itself uses, and they seem to think it is relevant. Why shouldn't be?

Background colour for females; it was done on the 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be done here. TheUzbek (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This will be a review of prose and structure alone. Also going to wait for Reywas weigh in on TheUzbek's response re criterion 3c concern.

• Be consistent with use or non-use of serial comma(s). i.e. usage in Party's Political Platform, Charter, and resolutions, while in other instances you don't.
  • Done
• cadres could use a wikilink if available for better context, for those of us who are unfamiliar
  • Done
• meet "basically" the same standards -- better off without "basically" as what is conveyed in this sentence doesn't change that it is a standard requirement
  • Done
• I would avoid using transition words consecutively in each sentences. i.e. In addition, Moreover, Therefore. Perhaps only use it sparingly as most of these can be conveyed without them.
  • Done
• At last -- finally or lastly is much more appropriate IMO.
  • Done
• In the table -- since the abbreviation is Ref, the full form should be Reference, since you only use on citation for each.
  • Done
• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thanks for reviewing the list! --TheUzbek (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Are words like "Moreover", "Therefore" and "Lastly" required to start the sentences they are used in in the lead? I have been advised against this sometimes in the past.

Great list. I urgently need some help with one of mine if you have some time. Regards.--NØ 12:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Done, removed "Therefore" and "moreover". I kept "lastly." I can review you're FL nom after you've finished reviewing this one. --TheUzbek (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only comment, actually. Great work.--NØ 14:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you do support its FL nom? TheUzbek (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No spotcheck needed, focusing on formatting/reliability. Just a note that I can't read Vietnamese, so I won't be able to check for typos in titles. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why Vuving 2017 has to be in a bibliography. Since there's only one sfn to it, I think it's easier to just use it as a reference and put the page number in the page= parameter
• Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
• Most of the links are marked as dead, so the archived url is displaying in the title. This should not be the case- but "live" in the url-status= parameter
• Unrelated, but why are the female cells under "Gender" marked pink and the male cells aren't marked at all? Or, really, why is gender relevant to this list?

TheUzbek, all done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done on all points. Gender is relevant since a) Vietnamese politicians and official media highlight their gender b) gender inequality, and c) representation of sexes in political institutions is often the talk of politics, and that is the case in Vietnam as well, where the Party is striving to reach two-thirds women in leadership position within the next twenty years (if I remember correctly).

Thanks for reviewing the list :) TheUzbek (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - great job, I understand why that's relevant, thanks for clarifying! By the way, if you have time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FLC! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much; I will review you're list! TheUzbek (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has stalled out for a while, so I've gone through and reviewed it myself. I can't say that I feel that I fully understand Vietnamese politics now, but much more so than beforehand! I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 22:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next animal list: #4 out of 6+capstone for the order Primates, and #33 overall in our series of mammal FLCs, we have another subgrouping of Primates, following the lorisoids, cercopithecoids, and hominoids, with the infraorder Tarsiiformes. We're sticking with the "largest grouping that contains all of the species" naming convention, but while Tarsiiformes lends its name to the list title, it contains only one extant family, Tarsiidae, whose members are in turn called the tarsiids or, more commonly, tarsiers. They're the monkeys with the giant eyes and giant hands, and the all live in forests in a cluster of islands in Southeast Asia. Unlike some of their cousins, instead of sticking to fruit, they'll eat most any insect or animal they can get in their mouth- which isn't much, seeing as they range from a small 8 cm (3 in) long to a... small 16 cm (6 in) long. Plus a tail that's at least twice as long as the rest of them. Tiny monkeys and a tiny family at only 14 species, which was a good breather before the next 100+ species list. As always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "it, along with the Peleng tarsier, pygmy tarsier, and Sangihe tarsier are" - need a comma after "Sangihe tarsier" to close off the clause started by the one after "it"
• Also, as the subject of the verb is "it", the verb should be singular
• "Diet: Flying insects and others" - does the "others" mean other insects?
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: All done (just condensed the last to insects). Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk/Source review

• All extinct genera, species, or subspecies listed alongside extant species went extinct after 1500 CE, and are indicated by a dagger symbol "†". - why is this present if none are extinct?
• Dians tarsier says: Diet: Insects, as well as small vertebrates[8], but Gursky's spectral tarsier says Diet: Insects as well as small vertebrates[12] - add or remove comma on all for consistency

That's all I got- no issues with sources, so that passes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Removed the dagger bit (it's the template for all these articles, but not needed for this list), added a comma. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• "Groves, Shekelle, 2010" shouldn't there be an and instead of a comma?
• The above comment actually applies to the authorities in most of the multi-authority species.
• The "Insects as well as frogs, lizards, and other small vertebrates" still isn't consistent, Gursky's through Peleng tarsiers lack the commas.
• All I got. AryKun (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: Done and done. --PresN 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. AryKun (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

• Shouldn't it be ..members of this infraorder are called tarsiiforms.., without the e?

• I've seen it both ways (and see it both ways when searching now), even in scholarly publications, so am now confused. I went with -es following Macropodiformes and Phalangeriformes (and Primates itself, though I think that's a different Latin setup).

• • • Hm, I can't find any consistency either.
• A few extinct prehistoric hominoid species have been discovered,... I think you're forgetting something...

• Whoops, fixed.

And a quick image review:

• That's a freaky-looking Makassar tarsier.
• All images are appropriately licensed.
• There's an image for the pygmy tarsier on its article.

• It's non-free, so I can't use it in these lists, unfortunately.

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: Responded inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support and pass image review. --Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): NØ 19:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list of songs recorded by Canadian singer-songwriter Alessia Cara. My interest in her is probably hardly surprising considering "Scars to Your Beautiful" is basically a Meghan Trainor song... A lot of work has gone into making sure this list is comprehensive since Miss Cara does a lot of features so I hope you guys enjoy it. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 19:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• I will do a full review later, but one thing that jumps out is that you have a key item for "Indicates songs written solely by Alessia Caracciolo", but you don't indicate anywhere in the article that Alessia Caracciolo and Alessia Cara are the same person. I know it's kinda obvious, but it's probably worth making it absolutely clear....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a note.--NØ 08:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• "Cara has contributed songs to film soundtracks: "How Far I'll Go" (2016) to Moana, "The Other Side" to The Get Down Part II, and "Feel You Now" and "Last Goodbye" (both 2021)" - when you say "both", does that actually cover all three songs mentioned since the first comma?
• The songs starting with "The" are placed alphabetically based on the next word (which is correct), but if you re-sort the table and then sort that column, they all jump to being with the Ts
• Albums starting with "The" sort under T when they should sort based on the next word
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Add Template:Use Canadian English or otherwise appropriate
• three studio albums, three extended plays (EP), one live album, and guest features - add "numerous" before guest features; otherwise, it seems like the "one" from "one live album" is carrying over
• including Logic's "1-800-273-8255" and Zedd's "Stay" in 2017 - not sure if this is the case for pop music, but for classical articles you don't link the artists' name before the song, since one could easily click the article to get to the composer's article

• For modern pop music, I believe we link these, generally.

• Sebastian Kole is sorting by his first name, not last

MaranoFan, that's all I got, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude @MyCatIsAChonk - Thanks for the reviews, guys. Greatly appreciated! I think everything should be sorting properly now.--NØ 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Link checker shows no issues
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the immensely helpful reviews!--NØ 17:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 34th nomination in this series of lists and this time round it's all (well, largely) about disco, baby :-) Feedback as ever most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Use abbr template in the "Ref" column header

ChrisTheDude, I see nothing else, great work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk - very cross with myself for forgetting that :-) Now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• more than one number one during the year; both acts had two chart-toppers -- more than one number one reads a bit repetitive or in close proximity with each other. Maybe tweak a bit like were the only two acts to achieve more than one chart-toppers, with two each or something alongs those lines.
• That's all I got. Another great work in your series as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. I've made a slight tweak. Not exactly what you suggested but hopefully it works....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reads even better. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Did we ever make a decision on whether "partial subscription needed" applies to Billboard?
• Everything looks great. Here comes the boilerplate.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The 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) 20:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: WP:UPSD puts the New York Post in a category of "source should generally be avoided, but context matters a lot here". If you can find a different newspaper for that story, great; if you can't, then leave it as is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - I replaced that NYP ref. It was only being used to ref that McCoo and Davis had previously been in the Fifth Dimension -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support--金色黎明 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the Skyfall accolades article becomes a featured list, I will nominate this one too! Chompy Ace 06:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "becoming the third consecutive series theme song (starring Craig)...." - this reads a bit oddly, as it kinda sounds like he starred in the songs. I would suggest changing to "becoming the third consecutive theme song from a film starring Craig as Bond....."
• That's it, I think - great work as ever on these lists! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just thought of something else (on the same sentence). You say "the third consecutive theme song [....] after Skyfall (2012) and Spectre", but Skyfall and Spectre are films, not songs, so you should really name the songs. So it should be "the third consecutive theme song [....] after "Skyfall" (from the 2012 film of the same name) and "Writing's on the Wall" (from Spectre)". Sorry for not thinking of that earlier...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, done again. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• If you sort the Recipients header from A to Z, why does "Ana de Armas" sort with the C/Es?

That's it, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, Ana is a first name while de Armas is a surname. Chompy Ace 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thanks for clarifying, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- not much to say here, it is like any other accolade list made by Chompy Ace, and the prose is already well-written per the other FLs. Good stuff! GeraldWL 10:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – The photos in the lead have appropriate free licensing, caption and alt text. No issues to report in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reliability and formatting of the sources book look okay across the board. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bart Starr Award has been presented to an NFL player each year since 1989 on the Saturday before the Super Bowl. The award, named after Green Bay Packers quarterback Bart Starr, is given to a player who exhibits outstanding character and leadership. This is my first FLC in quite some time, so please bear with me. Thank you for your consideration and review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Drive by comment, I'll be back later on to do a more thorough review, but the table does not currently pass an accessibility review (MOS:DTAB). PresN has a standard comment I find helpful for accessibility which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, did I do this correctly? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: The column scopes are good, and I'm assuming that table title works properly for screen readers, so you're good on that front. The row scopes don't appear to be correct though. I know how to correct it when cells are on new lines in the editor, but I'm not familiar with how to do so when multiple cells are divided by two vertical bars. A sign that you've done it correctly is if the cell that you've applied the scope to is the only one in the row that is shaded grey. See List of National Football League annual rushing touchdowns leaders as an example of this. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh My understanding is that the grey shading is achieved by the exclamation mark and not row scope field. Since the name of the player is the scope of the row, I'm not sure grey shading down the middle of the table would look appropriate or make sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I guess I just had never realized the correlation, how silly of me. Absent a screen reader, I'm frankly not sure how to check the accessibility. I'll assume it's good for now until PresN does their accessibility review.

One thing I should have mentioned though, I noticed that sort names are not applied to the list. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Images are relevant
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have alt text

Source review: Passed

• References are reliable for the information being reported
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent publisher/website formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Links are archived

Assuming that the rows are properly defined (no screen reader to verify this for myself), I support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review, source review and your support Hey man im josh, and congrats on the new tools :) Nice to see another Josh get adminship! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Probably worth specifying at the start that this relates to American football. Maybe start with "The Athletes in Action/Bart Starr Award is an American football award given annually..." I know you mention the National Football League in the first sentence, but it is not the only "National Football League" in the world.......
• "The award is presented by Athletes in Action (AIA), which is a sports ministry" => "The award is presented by Athletes in Action (AIA), a sports ministry"
• "The nominee list is compiled from a group of individuals made-up" => "The nominee list is compiled by a group of individuals made up" (as currently worded it indicates that the PR Directors, etc, are considered for nomination)
• "However, some past awardees have been chosen at times by fellow NFL players" => "However, some past awardees have been chosen by fellow NFL players"
• "Bart Starr, the former hall of fame quarterback" - as far as I know he is not a former hall of famer, so change to "Bart Starr, the hall of fame former quarterback"
• "to present the award that bared his name" => "to present the award that bears his name"
• "Since 2015, Tony Dungy and" => "Since 2015, former NFL coach Tony Dungy and" (can't assume readers know who Dungy is)
• "Steve Largent, the former hall of fame wide receiver" - as above
• How come the second and third entries under "see also" are more indented than the first? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, thanks for your comments. I implemented all of them except the first. After a quick perusal of other NFL awards, I don't really see a precedent of stating it's an American football award. I understand where you are coming from, but this isn't an American football award per se, it's an NFL award, and the NFL happens to be an American football league. I could add "NFL, an American football league in the United States" but that seems excessive. I think the NFL brand is largest enough that most readers won't mistake a small Irish league with the Internationally known NFL. And even if they do, NFL is linked. Thoughts? On your last question, I double indented those two items because article #2 and #3 are included in article #1. I've seen this done before but don't have a strong feeling either way, so let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After a quick perusal of other NFL awards, I don't really see a precedent of stating it's an American football award - that may be because none of the ones you looked at have been reviewed at FLC, where someone might bring it up. Other NFL-related lists which have been through FLC, such as List of National Football League annual rushing touchdowns leaders, do mention the sport right at the start. it also seems a little odd IMO to say it isn't an American football award when literally the only people eligible to win it are players of American football....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ChrisTheDude, the example you provided is for an NFL scoring record. It's fairly essential to understand the list itself to first understand how people score in American football, thus it makes sense to have that right off the start. That said, I made this change, I assume that satisfies your concern. Let me know if it doesn't (I really, really don't want to have "Bart Starr Award is an award", which sounds clunky at best). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your review and support! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• who returned the award after being arrested the night after he received it for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer - "after" twice in close succession is confusing; reword it, perhaps split it into two sentences or just put the reason in an efn
• The "References" header is commonly shortened with the abbr template, so that the column doesn't display so wide: Ref(s)
• Ref 34's website should not be formatted as a link, and wl it
• Fox is unreliable per WP:FOXNEWS, though I'm not sure if Fox Sports applies; still worth bringing up, though

Gonzo_fan2007, all done, great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MyCatIsAChonk for the comments. I implemented your recommendations. Regarding WP:FOXNEWS, I believe this only applies to foxnews.com, not the entirety of Fox's programming. A quick read of WP:FOXNEWS shows that the focus of editor's concerns were politics, science and talk shows. That said, I just updated the source to WCNC in Charlotte, since there were other sources easily available. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - thanks for the quick replies! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption and colscopes are good now, and rowscopes are almost there- you have e.g. | style="text-align: left;" scope="row" | {{sortname|Anthony|Muñoz}}, but to be a "header" cell it needs to be an '!', so ! style="text-align: left;" scope="row" | {{sortname|Anthony|Muñoz}}. That does make it look a little odd to have the third row be the header; consider either using the year column or re-ordering the columns so that the year or name is the first column.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think moving the year column to be the left most column and applying the row scope there makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PresN, excuse my ignorance on this, as it is the first time I have really got into table accessibility issues. Is the table accessible right now? Does the exclamation mark "header" do anything for accessibility or is it's only true function to make that column gray, indicating to the visual reader that it takes precedence or "heads" the remaining data? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PresN I updated the table to move the year to the left side. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, you're good now. And yes, the '!' marks it as a header cell for multiple purposes, and the wikimedia styling uses that to make it gray (like it does the header cells at the top of the table). --PresN 20:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: with 3 supports and all comments resolved at this point, any prejudice to me nominating another FLC? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --PresN 21:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers presidents/archive1, cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Swedish musician Basshunter. The last song "Ingen kan slå (Boten Anna)" was released on 23 June 2023. He has recorded a lot of unreleased tracks like "Livets fard", "Horn of Orcs", "Ni är det bästa som finns" or "The Indian" but they never were mentioned in any publication so I had to omitted them. It previously passed GOCE and was peer-reviewed. Structure is after similar featured lists. Eurohunter (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see no comments after three weeks on the market- happy to review. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• He published his music mainly through the internet. - rather vague, to what sites? BandCamp? YouTube?
  •  Comment: Unfortunately there is no source mention certain websites but I added "for free download on platforms such as chat channels and gaming websites.". Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's better. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Every time a year is used as a dependent clause (e.g. "In 2008...") it needs to be followed by a comma. Right now, only some instances have commas.
  •  Done. Commas added. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Same thing for "According to ____...", anytime a clause like that is stated it must be followed by a comma
  •  Done. I added commas but I'm not sure of first case - "According to Swedish magazine Filter, in 2004, Basshunter had already composed up to 300 songs." - not too many commas? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just fine. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were... - is that not two albums being listed? If not, clarify
  •  Comment: What do you mean by "being listed"? The Bassmachine is a studio album and The Old Shit is a compilation album. Both albums were released at the time in 2006 on Basshunter website. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I understand, my confusion was between the difference of the two. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but the article for LOL says it was his second studio album, while this article says it was his first- same numbering issue with Now You're Gone
  •  Done. Yes. LOL is the second studio album and Now You're Gone – The Album is the third studio album. I don't know what happened, but I fixed it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Writer" cell for "Al final" needs a cross
  •  Done. Added. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Songs that start with "the" should be sorted by the word after it (e.g. "The Basshunter" should be sorted as "Basshunter, The")
  •  Done. Order changed. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same applies to the "Album" column
    •  Done. Order changed. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnote "as" has a typo, should read, "Originally released as single, "Welcome to Rainbow" was released on later release of Now You're Gone – The Album.[9]"
  •  Comment: Do you mean just missing comma? I added it. Should I also add comma to note i and t? Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironically, I think I made a typo in my own comment. Disregard this comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:James Lord Pierpont.jpg - source link is dead and it needs an international PD tag
  •  Comment: What do you mean by "international PD tag"? Do you mean that jinglebellschurch.org/history.htm is a dead link? There is archived version, but I don't see anything related. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eurohunter, firstly, yes, the archive url needs to be added to be description. Secondly, the tag under "Licensing" only covers its PD status internationally (I got it backwards in the comment, my apologies). It need another tag to cover its status in the US. PD-old-expired should be right. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: @MyCatIsAChonk: I added link to archived version. Why it need another tag to cover its status in the United Status? What about Mexico and the other countries? Template PD-old-expired for the United States mention United States Copyright Office, but I don't know if it's registered there. Eurohunter (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eurohunter, Wikimedia servers are in the US, so they must comply with US copyright law. But, because media on Commons are used across all Wikipedias, media must also be available internationally. Now, I realized an error on my part- how can it be PD in countries with a 70+ author death copyright term if the author is unknown? My bad- PD-anon-expired should be right because it states that it was published before 1928 (making it public domain in the US) and that it was published over 95 years ago (making it public domain in most countries). MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done @MyCatIsAChonk: I changed template PD-old to PD-anon-expired. Eurohunter (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter, that's all from me, good work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Summary: @MyCatIsAChonk: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See responses above- only one requires further action. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- very nice work, all my points have been addressed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many, (MyCatIsAChonk commented on most of my concerns) but I'll add to them if I see anything else. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• His album, The Old Shit, and The Bassmachine were released on his website in 2006.. You already mentioned The Bassmachine being released in 2004, as well as his music being released through the internet, what is special about this release that you stated it again? Did it come out for free? Probably clarify.
  •  Comment: Yes, I added it because actually both albums were released on the same time on Basshunter website, so I think just to mention The Old Shit would be not enough or out of context. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think it's a bit weird to mention again, perhaps say The Old Shit and The Bassmachine were made available to purchase through his website in 2006? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Yes, they both were released in 2006 on Basshunter website, but only The Old Shit was actually premiered and The Bassmachine was released already earlier in 2004. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Then that is fine I guess, no way to really write that without being too clunky. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Eurohunter (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The album consisted of seven songs from two previous Basshunter albums, The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine. I am not quite sure what this is saying, is it 7 songs total from two previous albums, something from The Old Shit and all of The Bassmachine? Why is the number of tracks from The Old Shit not mentioned? The sentence should be reworded for clarity.
  •  Done. I don't know why, but it was kinda unclear. I changed it to "The album mostly consisted of songs from two previous Basshunter albums, 7 songs from The Old Shit, and all 10 songs from The Bassmachine." Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The grammar in footnote "b" is a bit off, I believe the meaning is something along the lines of "According to the ACE Repertory, the song "Utan stjärnorna" was co-written by Basshunter and Ali Payami. However, in the 2006 release of Basshunter's "LOL" album, the song, translated as "Without Stars," is credited solely to Basshunter as both the writer and producer.
  •  Comment: It's good idea, but I wanted to mention that LOL had different versions released in different time, and it was just one of the versions. So I would like to use your idea but there need to be mention that it is not the original/first/premier version of LOL - I don't know how to mention it. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the way I stated it works (2006 release implies there was another release IMO), but you could say "second release" (or whatever number release it was). You could also say the "2006 re-release" ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: @ULPS: There is a lot of physical and digital versions - exact release dates are not known for some versions, so then it would be very hard to count if it's 6th or 7th version etc. Eurohunter (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So why not say the 2006 re-release? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: @ULPS: Hard to say. For example, if someone released an album in the United Kingdom on CD then two weeks later the same or other version would be released in Sweden - would we call it a re-release? Eurohunter (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eurohunter: Yeah I guess not. I think the grammar can still be cleaned up from Later 2006 release of LOL album at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely written and produced song to On the later 2006 release of LOL at "Without Stars" it indicates that Basshunter solely wrote and produced the song. This doesn't change the meaning, just the grammar. I made this change myself, feel free to revert if you think of something better :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @ULPS:  Comment: I think it's better and I will fix the other cases in the same way. Eurohunter (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Great! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Eurohunter (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, nice job! ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Summary: @ULPS: Your comments have been noted and issues has been taken into account. Some issues require further comments from you. Thank you. Eurohunter (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]