Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2022

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, here's my 13th nomination of a number ones list from the pre-history of Billboard's R&B/hip-hop chart. One of the most notable number ones in this year was Big Joe Turner's "Shake Rattle and Roll", which when covered by Bill Haley would be one of the most influential songs in the early development of rock and roll..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. All the info without inline citations from the intro is cited in the table as far as I can see. A couple of points that I made on the 1953 list ("pictured in" in captions, and use of IABot) have been covered off by edits earlier this week.

• "Clyde McPhatter led the Drifters to two number ones in 1954." - They had two on the best-sellers and one on the Juke Box chart, so maybe reword? It was two songs though.

@BennyOnTheLoose: - thanks for that, I have adjusted the McPhatter image caption accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have nothing else on this one. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pass. Images are relevant. No issues with positioning or captions. Suitable alt text is in place. Three of the images are public domain and the other is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Having looked at the WikiCommons pages, I'm satisfied that "Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on this series (as always). One very minor suggestion, perhaps you could link "1945 show tune" to Carousel (musical), since the name of the musical show isn't mentioned. --Pseud 14 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• This is so easy, I feel a little guilty. But I guess it's supposed to get easier over time!
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources. I have one minor formatting issue: the ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. The MoS calls for the longer 13-digit versions (I see 10 digits for at least one), and some of the hyphenation comes and goes. The book list could use a tweak or two. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giants2008: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should take care of the source review, as I don't see any other issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next of my nominations from the history of Billboard's R&B charts. Among the most notable chart-toppers this year was "Big Mama" Thornton's original recording of "Hound Dog", a song later made legendary by Elvis Presley. Anyone who has heard the recent song "Vegas" by rapper/singer Doja Cat will have heard Big Mama's vocals being sampled on that track...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another solid work. Only comment is whether "The "5" Royales" should be sorted as the numeric 5 and not as "five"? --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: No idea if there is a rule on this. WP:SORT doesn't seem to offer any help.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know either. The 5th Wave (film) and The 5th Dimension are both sorted as "5" (according to their DEFAULTSORT). - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same reason as to my clarification too, per Chris's comments . But if we would be going by precedence, I guess Dank's examples would be the way to go? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pseud 14: fair enough, changed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Only a couple of minor questions/comments. I make no claims to being a good writer, so I'm happy to have my suggestions challenged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "in the early 1960s she turned to gospel music ..." feels to me like it could be the start of a new sentence
• "Willie Mabon's" - shouldn't this just be "Mabon's", as he has already been mentioned?
• I guess you considered including all of the info about Faye Adams's "Shake a Hand" in one place and decided to keep the info about it being her first chart entry alongside the other debutants. Shouldn't it be just "Adams" at the second mention?
• "Faye Adams reached number one with "Shake a Hand", the first chart entry of her career, a feat also achieved by the "5" Royales," - consider starting a new sentence after "of her career," (there are two further bits of info about the "5" Royales in the sentence, which seems like quite a lot all in one sentence.)
• "This gave the group the distinction of having gained two number ones with its first two charting songs, but it would not achieve another chart-topper" would read better to me as "their first two charting songs, but they would not achieve another chart-topper", but there may be good reasons not to change it.
• Consider adding something like "(pictured in 1971)" to the BB King caption, and similarly for the Boyd (1968) one as they are both from a fair few years after 1953. I think the McPhatter one probably doesn't need a date in the caption as it's closer (1959) to the year the article is about.
• Should be an en dash in "1942-1988" in Joel Whitburn's Top R & B Singles, 1942-1988
• The "Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan Recordings Added to Grammy Hall of Fame" Rolling Stone link takes me to a 404 page. Consider running IABot, which might provide a link to an archived copy.
• I think it should be 'Over the Rainbow' rather than "Over the Rainbow" in "National Recording Registry Picks Are "Over the Rainbow""

@BennyOnTheLoose: - many thanks for your review, all sorted I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for your work on the list. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. I checked only the captions on images, since you've got an image review above.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – As Dank said above, the sources are reliable throughout. They are also well-formatted and the link-checker tool isn't detecting any issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Image review – All of the photos used in the article have appropriate free licensing and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, Giants2008: when I said "you've got an image review above", I was confusing this one with WP:Featured list candidates/List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1954/archive1. - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 September 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has the potential to reach this status. This is my fifth GLAAD Media Award nomination after Outstanding Comic Book, Drama Series, Comedy Series, and Video Game. Admittedly, I did run into a few problem. By the late 90s, the separation between Outstanding Film - Wide Release and Limited Release has become solidified, but the early 90s were more mixed up. Sometimes films won and were labelled as just that; Film. At other times, one of them was labelled as having won the Vito Russo Film Award. Not sure if the latter is to be viewed as a precursor of the Limited Release category, but for simplicity's sake, if something was labelled as "Vito Russo" or "Limited", it wasn't included here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of only two instances where two film won" => films
• "While the movie was recognized in 1993" - should that say "no film"......?
• "The followin year" - second word is spelt wrong
• "a distinction was between films" => "a distinction was made between films"
• "that received a wide releases" - last word should be singular
• Titles starting with "The" or "A" should sort based on the next word
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, I really suck sometimes with this grammatical mistakes. Oof. Anyway. Done with all of the above, unless I might have missed any "A" or "The" titles. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there a public reason the award was not given out in 1993?

• I wasn't able to find one, but based on some of the other lists, I don't think GLAAD gave out any such statements; at least not in the 90s. If I had to guess, they probably didn't find any films from that year good enough for nomination. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I had thought as well. Thank you for clarifying this point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link plurality vote in the lede. I know this will sound rather dumb on my part, but I would not be 100% with providing a definition to this concept so I'd imagine other readers would be in a similar position and would like further clarification.

• Done.

• Is it worth noting in the lead that the 7th GLAAD Media Awards was the first time nominees were made public as opposed to just the winners (as done in the previous ceremonies)?

• @Aoba47: I guess there might be room to include that somewhere. Do you think it's better to include that in the lead, or have it appear as a note in the infobox during the 1996 ceremony? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of giving a non-answer, it is up to you. It could also be a case where this is unnecessary to note because it is not that important or it just comes as awkwardly inserted in the lede or in a note. To clarify this question was not a requirement, but more so of a clarification question and you could disagree with it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I think I found a good place to include it. Let me know if it needs improvement.

I do not have much to say in my review, which only consists of two clarification questions and a request to link a particular item in the lede. You have done a great job with this list. Hopefully, it will inspire other editors to work on GLAAD lists or LGBT lists in general. Let me know when everything has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the kind words. That was actually my hope back in 2018 when I worked on the Outstanding Comic Book list; that other people would decide to work on the following lists. Then I realized that wasn't happening, so I decided to do it myself. Lol. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt responses. I really should work on one of these lists in the future. It has been a while since I last worked on a list (since 2019 actually) so it would be nice to focus on something outside of the FAC process for a bit. I appreciate that you added the Chloe Zhao image to the list. Everything looks solid to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• This probably needs {{short description|none}} on the first line.
• "Film created by and for an LGBT audience must be submitted in order to be considered for nomination, as GLAAD does not monitor such works for defamation.": That's what GLAAD's website says, but it's not clear what it means. I recommend dropping the part after the comma ... and the part before the comma borders on a close paraphrase, so please fiddle with that a bit.
• "Shareholders Circle members, as well as volunteers and affiliated individuals": Not quite the right tone, and again, I'm not sure what that means, so I recommend simplifying this to: "as well as some of its supporters, volunteers and affiliated individuals". This would remove the note, of course.
• "The Weinstein Company" needs to sort under W, and "The Samuel Goldwyn Company" needs to sort before "Sony".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up with the nominator on their user talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 September 2022 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk and RunningTiger123 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating the 2022 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. We followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 08:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "This marked the first time that three people have shared hosting duties" => "This marked the first time that three people had shared hosting duties"
• "with DJ Khaled introducing the hosts and athletes Tony Hawk, Kelly Slater, and Shaun White introducing" - this is very confusing - are all three people hosts and athletes? Just athletes? Or are just Hawk and Slater athletes? I can't figure out at all which descriptors apply to which people......
• "Will Smith walked onstage and slapped presenter and comedian Chris Rock over a joke about his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith." - unclear from this wording whose wife she is
• "Most media outlets were more critical of the show." - more critical than whom?
• "performed by muscial group The Samples" - "musical" is spelt wrong
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done: I have read all your comments and made adjustments accordingly.

--Birdienest81talk 14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Generally excellent, I delinked a few works (since the scheme you were going with is only linking the first mention) but no issues now.

Reliability

• All high-quality news sources, no issues found.

Verifiability

• Checked a few, no issues.
• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "portraying Anita in the 2021 film adaption" - change "adaption" to "adaptation"
• "during an interview with producer Packer on Good Morning America" - I don't think "producer" is needed since it's already established at the start of the paragraph
  • That's about it. Good job on this! Harushiga (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Harushiga: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Harushiga (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The winners were announced during the awards ceremony on March 27." is missing a citation
• Use straight quotation marks ('") instead of curly ones (’”) per MOS:CURLY
• Under "Ceremony information", the triple image caption feels incomplete to only have a "left" parenthetical for Regina Hall without adding "center" or "right" for Amy Schumer and Wanda Sykes.
• It reads awkwardly to use "citing" within "citing time constraints and the desire to avoid another disruption". You'd be better off with "due to" or "because of".
• To avoid WP:SYNTH, you should add a reference to back up "The broadcast generally received mixed to negative reviews." with something that specifically talks about overall reception.

This will need work to become FL-worthy but you should be able to handle it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS: I've addressed almost all of the comments up above, but I have trouble locating the curly quotation marks. I tried copying the curly quotes syntax from the MOS:CURLY, but it highlights all the quotation marks. Is there a way to locate the curly ones from the straight ones?

--Birdienest81talk 08:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's something you'd have to locate with your own eyes. Look under the "Ceremony information" heading to find them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SNUGGUMS, User:Birdienest81: you don't have to eyeball it to locate it, at least using Firefox. Copy the left-curly-quotes character, hit Ctrl-F to "find", and check the "match diacritics" box ... it will search for just the curly quotes, rather than all kinds of quote marks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But ... I'm not finding any curly quotes in this list article at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has "Will is a powerhouse producer who has enjoyed success across all movie genres! He’s already bringing a boundless energy and a focus on innovation to this year’s Oscars, to entertain the widest spectrum of fans." while the second one includes "Some are movie lovers who have seen every single one of the nominated movies, and they’ve got very specific opinions about who wins. And then you have people who are just casual moviegoers, who perhaps have not seen the awards fare but who also love movies. I’m inviting them in as well. They’re just as important to me as a viewer." Hopefully this helps. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; those are straight quotes. I know both by eyeballing them and by searching for straight quotes in Firefox with the "match diacritics" box toggled. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite weird. Maybe it's because I'm using Chrome, but those instances showed as curly for me while others were straight. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @SNUGGUMS:: Okay, it looks like I was able to fix the curly apostrophes/quotes problem. I used the same "match diatrics" feature (Ctrl+F). Although it still does not distinguish between straight and curly ones, I was able to eyeball them more easily this time since I can see the highlighted apostrophes/quotes more clearer.

--Birdienest81talk 09:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that, you have my support for the nomination :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 19 September 2022 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kelly was one of the leading actors of Classical Hollywood cinema, here is a list of her roles. As always I welcome all constructive criticism on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think to suggest is clarifying that Alfred Hitchcock was the director of the named films, as some people might not know what "Alfred Hitchcock thrillers" means. Other that that, nothing to mention :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Amended. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little explanation on this edit of mine: I'm not faulting your work; you used a format that's common in featured lists of filmographies, and some people like it that way. To me, it feels like a MOS:FIRST violation, so I went with a different format that's also common in featured lists, such as Bruce Willis filmography and List of Kate Winslet performances. - Dank (push to talk) 10:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the format at List of roles and awards of Catherine Zeta-Jones also works, I think, if you prefer ... even "[numeral] productions" without breaking it down would work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for your comments and edits. Agree it reads better now. Cowlibob (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a few comments for the sources links for File:Grace Kelly 1956.jpg. The eBay link is dead and the links for the front and back link to a sketchy site that does not appear to support the image.
• The lead's first paragraph uses "The following year" twice which makes the prose rather repetitive.

Everything looks solid. Aside from these two comments, I believe this is ready for promotion. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments. I have changed to hopefully a better pic. Made a slight copy edit. Cowlibob (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I'd be curious on why File:Grace Kelly Promotional Photograph Rear Window.jpg was not included alongside the High Noon image as I feel that her appearance in Rear Window is her most iconic and recognizable (at least to modern audiences), but that's more of a personal question. I've always loved Kelly, as cliché as that sentiment is. Anyway, I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've changed up the photo to a promotional one for Rear Window. I agree her work with Hitchcock is what she is remembered for. Cowlibob (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this point. I love the photo that you have chosen. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool isn't showing any concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Straughn (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list as it follows the same format of successful nominations from the other twelve featured lists from other states. With reviewer help, our goal is to bring the lists for all states up to the same high standard. These lists are fairly standardized by now and this one should be of the same high standard but there is always room improvements. We are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "City of the First Class has [....], City of the Second Class has [....] and an Incorporated Town" - add the indefinite article to the first two to match the last

• I remvoed the indefinite article from the third so all three match, does that work?

• "Any expense over $20,000" - can you be more specific about what this covers? Currently it could be interpreted as referring to any time that anyone in the city wants to spend $20K eg when Dave wants to buy a new car :-)

• Good catch, the source document doesn't specify but I added "municipal expense" to eliminate Dave's car.

• "at least 5 members" => "at least five members"  Done
• "Incorporated towns" - needs a capital T for consistency  Done
• Photo captions are complete sentences so need full stops  Done
• Inconsistent use of Arkansas'/Arkansas's in the photo captions  Done
• Two rows have no date of incorporation - is this genuine or an accidental omission?

• This is genuine, there were actually more but Straughn did some digging and filled in what they could (with appropriate references).

• Yes, I got in touch with the State Library, the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, and the Secretary of State, but none of them could provide information on dates of incorporation for Corinth or Patterson. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some rows have two dates of incorporation - would be good to explain how/why this is

• Added note; some towns and cities were reincorporated at later dates. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Note d - accounts vary between what and what?  Done

• I added a specific note for each case, I believe I have all the cases sourced, so I removed the general note in favour of the specific. Does this work?

• Added explanatory sentence but the wording is directly from the source, I hope that doesn't count as plagiarism as it's very hard to reword.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I made most changes, need some time for the others. Thanks for the excellent review, you caught some really hard to spot errors! Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we have completed all requested changes! What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Arkansas is divided into 75 counties and contains 501" As the number is not fixed, you should say "As of date"  Done
• "the smallest by population is Victoria with 20 residents". No change needed but as a Britisher I find it remarkable how small US municipalities can be. If half of Victoria residents are voting adults and it has five council members then presumably half the voters have to be councillors? However, the system is much more democratic than the British one, which has boroughs with very large populations.

• No idea how these tiny municipalities deal with the legal obligations for number of council members... it is very odd indeed.

• Maybe have photos of smallest muncipalities as well as the largest?

• A picture of the smallest municipalities would be, without much exaggeration, a person's house surrounded by their property. There might be privacy issues around that.

• All looking good. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Made the one suggestion, but thanks for looking it over! I know they are quite standardized but happy to make any changes! Mattximus (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.  Done
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.  Done
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]] becomes !scope=row | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.  Done
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking into accessibility. I'm glad to know about this for all my future edits. I've updated the tables in the article and believe they should meet accessibility standards. Straughn (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I normally check sorting on all sortable columns, but not when the table is this number-heavy. I sampled the links in the table. (Otherwise, if you can deal with PresN's concerns above, that should cover the table review.)
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, the best I can tell, 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) 03:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The captions for the pictures of the top 10 municipalities are somewhat repetitive ... given the title "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population" might it be simpler to write "1st Little Rock (state capital)" "2nd Fayetteville" etc? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I had the same reaction, but I wasn't sure what to say about it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mixed up the phrasing a bit so that it's less repetitive, how is it now? I still think sentences are best rather than point form (which for me looks strange in a caption), but if it's not diverse enough I'm open to other suggestions for wording. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already supported, but if you're asking, and if it were my list, I'd create an additional table with 10 rows ... the first column would be just "1, 2, 3 ...", then the image of the city, then a notes column ... maybe another column. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        This is not a make or break issue for me, happy to support, but the changes don't really address the problem. I'm not sure about another table and if using ordinal numbering is a problem, what about adding the actual population number? ie "1. Little Rock (state capital), pop. 202,591" etc and change the title of the image gallery to "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population (2020)". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are comments from my review.

• Reference 4 is an edition from 2007. Surely there must be a more recent edition of the publication that can be used as a reference instead. Perhaps something has changed in past 15 years. Also, on iPad I can only see the first page of the 2007 edition. Done: Added 2019 edition. This section did not change in this edition. Straughn (talk)
• References have inconsistent date formats. At least three different formats are in use.  Done: Straughn (talk)
• Convert reference 5 from ALL CAPS to Title Case. It doesn’t matter that the source itself uses ALL CAPS. Done: Straughn (talk)
• Reference 13 is missing an access date. Done: Citation was also updated and corrected from Google Books. Straughn (talk)
• Municipality classifications are not proper nouns. They should all be lower case throughout prose.  Done
• Not a single reference is from state legislation associated with municipalities. A review of such would verify that municipality classifications are not proper nouns.

• Ref #4 does cite specific passages from state legislation, page 5 specific to your inquiry. They seem to use both proper nouns, and not, interchangeably. I would agree with you it looks better with lower case, so I made those changes. Is it worthwhile citing primary sources for this (the law themselves) or will this secondary source suffice? 03:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 4 only erroneously uses title case in the table. Every other instance throughout is correctly lowercased. Legislation being a primary source is a grey area for me for this list. The applicable legislation is here that verifies lowercase. Hwy43 (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Thanks for this link! I added it to the page, and it has a lot of information. I will assume the guidebook did a good job of summarizing it as it is the official document given to municipal officials, and use those main points int he paragraph. Mattximus (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an instance of "City" still capitalized in the "City (second class)" section. Hwy43 (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Arkansas is a state located in the Southern United States." The word "in" renders "located" redundant and unnecessary.  Done
• Lowercase "census" in 2020 United States Census to match article title?  Done
• "incorporated municipalities". Municipalities are incorporated by definition. No such thing as unincorporated municipalities AFAIK, so no need to distinguish from non-existent "unincorporated municipalities".  Done
• There is an WP:OVERLINK infraction in the opening paragraph.  Done
• Seven of eleven sentences in second paragraph are unsourced.

• The seven you refer to all come from the source at the end of the last (of the seven) sentences. If they are all in sequence, is it proper form to cite once at the end of the seven sentences, or should there be seven references to the same source? I'm happy either way. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don’t know if it is proper form but the absence begged the question. May comment further on this once the sectionizing comment is resolved. Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphens missing in instances of "four year term".  Done
• Lowercase "Police Department" as it is a common noun.  Done
• Second paragraph in lead Lead is too long. Break it up by sectionizing into discussions on each of the three municipality classifications.

• I see what you are saying, but in this case, each trait of the three classifications is defined *based on the other classifications*, often in opposition. So to separate them will become quite redundant in the wording and quite lengthy, and some parts will not make sense (without seeing how the trait compares to the others). If this makes sense? I can give examples if this reasoning isn't clear. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not convinced. There is content at the start of the second paragraph that can remain in the lead if further summarized, and then repeated in detail in the sections. The sections can be ordered to respect the hierarchy of the three classes, whether top-down or bottom-up, that can allow building off the traits of each other. Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have amended my comment. This is about the second paragraph's length, not the length of the lead overall. It runs on in a complicated fashion and is difficult to understand. Hwy43 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I have done what you suggested, was this what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is much better. Thank you. In the "City (second class)" section, in addition to the capitalized "City" instance mentioned above:

  • the opening sentence refers to first class when it should be second;
  • there are two overlink infractions in the first sentence (linked in previous section);
  • the second sentence first refers to a recorder and then refers to a city clerk at the end; and
  • the final sentence refers to city clerks rather than recorders.

  In the "Towns" section, the second sentence refers to cities of the second class and city councillors, while the final sentence refers to "city clerks or treasurers" when it appears it should refer to "treasurer-recorders". Hwy43 (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List section heading is needlessly redundant and lengthy. "List of municipalities" would suffice after sectionizing as just described.  Done
• There is a space before a period in one of the photo captions.  Done
• A list of 501 entries would greatly benefit from a Template:Compact TOC. Done: Straughn (talk)
• Four column headings are without sources.

• Change and population density are calculated columns; this has been fairly standard in articles like this, in the various population change templates, and in the Infobox:Settlement templates. I've added sources for Name and 2010 population. Straughn (talk)

• Okay. So if the US Census Bureau doesn’t have population count tables with change and density similar to other countries (like this) then I am okay with the templates calculating these figures without references. Hwy43 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Type column uses "City I" and "City II" yet such short form is not introduced in the prose. Is this an official short form used in a source? Nope, fixed it.  Done

• Not fond of the solution as it can convey a link to social class concepts instead. In the municipal classification system for cities, "city" is primary while the assigned class is a descriptor. Suggest "City (first class)" and "City (second class)" instead. Hwy43 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Why no day in dates of incorporation for Adona and Cherokee Village? There may be others I didn’t spot missing the day as well.

• This information is not available anywhere. I've been in touch with the State Library, the Secretary of State, and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas to try to find this information (and the information in question below); there is simply nothing out there. I added a clarifying note for Cherokee Village, which has a complicated history. Straughn (talk)

• Why no month and day in second dates of incorporation for Bryant and Vandervoort? There may be others I didn’t spot missing the month and day as well.
• What is going on with Hector's incorporation date?

• Straughn, would you be able to answer this one? Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got Hector's date from a photograph of its water tower on their website. I'll delete that, since that seems like a very shaky source to use. Straughn (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Hwy43 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When were Corinth and Patterson incorporated? Just saw this was previously raised and answered. Not a deal breaker, but an explanatory note for both blank cells stating that incorporation dates are unknown might help answer a begged question.  Done
• For final two rows, the contents in cells within the fourth through sixth columns do not match justification of contents in same cells for all individual municipality rows.  Done: Straughn (talk)

This likely covers most of my quibbles. Hwy43 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick note I am on vacation and could not respond in the past week, but will return in September to finish off the comments! Mattximus (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – To add to the points Hwy43 raised, references 15 and 21 both need publishers added to the cites. On the positive side, reliability of the sources appears okay and the link-checker tool doesn't show any dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've filled in the missing information for reference 15 (Springdale & Bethel Heights). Reference 21 (Hector) can't be expanded any further - the information came from an image on the page's scrolling gallery. There is simply no other information about the publisher to be had. Straughn (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the delay in my response. It appears that those earlier issues have been resolved. One more quick thing I just saw: current ref 14 could use an en dash for the year range in the title, for style purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Straughn (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With that done, I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 03:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 23:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of the lists! With an annual readership of about 6.67 million, it is the most viewed list on Wikipedia and one of the most viewed page on the entire encyclopedia. A highly important list, this was a FL from 2005 to 2008, until it was delisted. This is a humble attempt by me to take this list back to the featured status.

A few fundamentals first. The structure of the list received a consensus in a recent RfC with the view of not to duplicate cells when using the sorting feature. The images for individual presidents have been decided to be same as those in the info-boxes of their respective pages (in a RfC). Exceptions to this include Barack Obama and a few others; in those cases, talk page discussion had consensus to use the other images. As for the lead image, we had a RfC without any consensus for a particular image, but the overall consensus was for image of some kind (See RfC). Any suggestions about that are also welcome.

I, along with the help of few other editors, to whom I am grateful, worked on the sources of the list and added citations for everything. The prose and "Notes" have also been re-worked till some extent. All constructive feedback is more than welcome!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of this KS! Due to this list's prominent status on WP, I may be a little extra picky, just so we can get it right. Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

• Source formatting is generally excellent
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You could consider adding more author links, as I suspect some of the ANB biographers have WP articles
  • I don't usually add author links, and have removed the sole author link from the sources. They appear consistent now, is it fine? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely a suggestion! Consistency is the goal here so your choice is fine by me. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You could also consider archiving the urls
  • I tried using the "Fix dead links" from the history page, but it is not archiving the references. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, I tried doing so and didn't work for me either. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

• If alternative sources are available, I would strongly suggest switching out the rather old sources Goldman 1951, Fairman 1949, Seasongood 1932 and perhaps Willis & Willis 1952 (each of which have a single ref use I believe). AP (1932) is on the older side as well.
  • Done mostly all except one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely there is a more recent Coolidge biography that could be used instead of Fuess? Not a huge deal since the only thing being sourced is a single date, but thought I'd throw it out there.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• Is a page range really needed for the Fuess (1940) ref? Surely the date August 3, 1923 is not said over five pages? Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes Ref. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, I responded to the points above. Thanks for the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I fixed up a few smaller things myself and added an oclc to the book too old to have an ISBN. Sourcing looks great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have accessibility concerns with the split cells. I do not have a screenreader so I don't know how they're handled but semantically I don't think they fly. For example, the Election column for George Washington contains two discrete entries separated by a visual element. This was done because consensus was that, if we had sorting, we couldn't allow the sorting to split up rowspanned cells (... It's hard to explain unless you've seen it, I can find a diff if anyone's interested), so they got rid of the rowspans. But the replacement, a visual (i.e. not structural like a table cell) divider, I don't know how that will be handled by screenreaders. This type of splitting is also used in the Party and Vice President column.
  • That said, I personally disagree with many of the decisions made here but I won't be petty and oppose solely on that. The accessibility issue, however, needs to be addressed. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basic idea behind this table format was to avoid duplication of cells when using the sortability feature. We had to get rid of multiple column cells within a row of a single president to avoid unnecessary duplication. An image of the issue could be seen here. The current table format was proposed and had consensus. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that. Consensus does not trump accessibility, however. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly agree with you. But it appears that, per FL criteria and MOS:DTAB, that the list meets general accessibility requirements of table caption, scope of headers, and the general table layout. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also pinging @PresN if they can tell us if the current table format is an issue for the screen readers. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually don't know how screen readers handle the "four-dash" lines; I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Question about how screen readers handle List of presidents of the United States. The list seems fine from an accessibility perspective otherwise. --PresN 18:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • They'd read them as either "separator", something like "four dashes", or maybe nothing at all ... all of which are fine by me. Graham87 03:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks a lot, Graham, much appreciated! @Golbez, it seems that those four dashes are not causing any accessibility issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Were the changes made to the page-in-question, also made to the List of vice presidents of the United States page? GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you have concerns about the List of vice presidents of the United States, bring them up there, not here. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Was not the last RFC meant to cover both pages? GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no idea, and either way it is still irrelevant to the FL candidacy of List of presidents of the United States, which is judged on its own merits. I have no idea where you're going with this. Aza24 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Aza24. Feel free to let me know if you have any specific constructive concerns about this list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay: FLC is solely the process for promoting (or not) individual lists to featured status after review; it is not a mechanism for enforcing RFC, Wikiproject, or content discussion standards (beyond how they shape reviewer opinions), and is especially not for shaping the content of pages beyond the nominee. In my opinion, yes, the VP list should use a similar structure to this list for accessibility (and general presentation) reasons, but that's a discussion for that list and has no bearing on this FLC. Nominators are under no obligation to edit other, un-nominated lists, even if it makes sense from a consistency point of view. --PresN 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One page at a time. I see. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an image that could go in the lead? It looks a bit bare without one......
  • I agree. As I specified in this nomination statement, the overall consensus in the RfC on lead image was that we need image of some kind, but couldn't agree on which one. I think which image needs to go in the lead can be discuss independent of FLC. (See RfC) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "45 people have served" - may as well say 45 men
  • Sure, but I wish this to be changed to "people" again soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes e and t are not complete sentences so do need a full stop
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot, Chris. All addressed except the first! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I suppose the lead image isn't that big a deal. And well done for picking up on what I actually meant with my last point considering that I inadvertently typed the exact opposite of what I meant! :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And yeah, coincidentally, even I misread it is "do not need a full stop"!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A well-written and informative lead for an article that is rather prominent.

• Very minor comment, perhaps we can link "Four presidents died in office of natural cause", since this refers to heads of government or people in position.

That's all from from! Fantastic work.--Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, done. Thanks for the comment. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States" ... Is United States necessary twice? Could this be: "The president is the head of state and head of government of the United States"?
  • I think we should be mentioning the full title of the office, at-least in the first sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then what about "The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government, indirectly elected to a four-year term via the Electoral College."? As the very first sentence of the article, it's somewhat clunky reading having United States twice (not to mention United States in the title appearing directly above that ... it's not as if anyone will be mistaken that we're talking about a different country). Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if, in the current version, I replace the second United States with US? Would it be better? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        For me, that wouldn't be an improvement. It's not an issue which changes my support ... happy to leave it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "...giving rise to the discrepancy between the number of presidents and the number of persons who have served as president." ... I think this would be less ambiguous if written as "giving rise to the discrepancy between the number of presidencies..."
  • Your suggestion appears better, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Goldsztajn! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Support and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief comments:

• Wouldn't the death/resignation notes make more sense next to the date their term ended rather than their name? Seems out of place currently
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You might consider linking "unaffiliated" in Washington's row to Independent politician, but up to you
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You might also use the abbreviation template for the 'b.' for living presidents, e.g. {{Abbr|B.|born in}}
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really understand the relevance of "The most recent to die was George H. W. Bush, on November 30, 2018"—is this going to be updated everytime a president dies? Seems like a huge waste of time and rather pointless. Was there a discussion that put it there? Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, since the lifespans are in the article, it already has to be updated every time a president dies. So if that's a problem then we should remove the lifespans. --Golbez (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not really the main point of my comment. I don't see how it is relevant for someone reading the "List of presidents of the United States" to know which one died most recently. That is the very epitome of unneeded trivia, and is not meaningful in any way. Aza24 (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree; however, removing that sentence doesn't change the amount of time wasted updating death dates every time a president dies. I find the lifespans equally pointless. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keeping my personal opinion aside, as the nominator of this list, I must abide by the consensus. The consensus here is that, that particular sentence should be in the list. See this talk page discussion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One more: though they are all redirects, my initial instinct is that it would be good to link to Resignation of John C. Calhoun, Resignation of Spiro Agnew and Resignation of Richard Nixon in their respective notes, as it points to context that a reader might very well out upon seeing the note. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Aza24, for the comments! And sorry it took a while to address them, have recently been busy IRL. I hope you are feeling more encouraged and would continue on Wiki! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks! The list looks great, so I would definitely support its promotion. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FLC criteria. Any comment is very much welcomed. Thanks to all who participate :).— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• There is a lot of unsourced content. Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories will need referencing to confirm that it existed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories are referenced to confirm that it existed. For example, reference number 23 have all the information about each Jackson song that charted in the US. If you have not found any references to confirm that it existed, please let me know. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, my comment should have read "any single which did not chart". There are over 30 entries in the "Promotional or limited release" table which at present are unreferenced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* "In 1982 Jackson released..." → "In 1982, Jackson released..." (for consistency with similar sentences) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Similarly, "In 1983 Jackson again..." → "In 1983, Jackson again..." Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "a collaboration with Paul McCartney was released" → "a collaboration with Paul McCartney, was released" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "'Billie Jean', released as the second single, ..." – sentence fragment, needs to be reworded Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] "collabortaed" → "collaborated" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "in the United States ," → "in the United States," Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] "including one number-one hit" → "...including number-one hit..." Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "...which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy" − sentence is unclear (missing a word?) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson, 'Earth Song', 'They Don't Care About Us', and 'You Are Not Alone'" → "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson; 'Earth Song'; 'They Don't Care About Us'; and 'You Are Not Alone'" (note where commas become semicolons) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "and it sold over 1.2 million copies" → "and sold over 1.2 million copies" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "making it Jackson's one of the most successful single in the UK" → "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Sony renews its deal" → "Sony renewed its deal" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Footnotes b and c are generally unsourced – how do we know that a given single was not released in the United States or many overseas territories? And what does "many overseas territories" mean? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reference 7 is attributed to "George", but there is no full citation anywhere Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Similar issue for reference 12, attributed to "Barrow" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] This (and the previous note) are still not fixed; there are no full citations for George or Barrow. Readers have no way to identify these sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reference 45 has an improperly formatted link Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] References 70 and 81 should not be bare URLs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] In general, the citation format is wildly inconsistent. Some citations use "Last, First" for author names while others use "First Last"; some authors aren't even correct (i.e., "News, A. B. C." in reference 22); some citations omit website names; and so on. Unless I specifically noted it above, it's not significant enough for me to oppose the nomination, but I would highly suggest revising the citations for consistency if you have time. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Follow-up note (mainly for other reviewers): While I noticed citation issues, I didn't have time for a full source review – I just focused on the most glaring issues in formatting for the current sourcing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have fixed the citation formats and added website names and authors' names where it was missing. Please have a look now. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*In the infobox, having the two entries as "Singles" and "Other singles" looks odd Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] "In the United States, Jackson had amassed" => "In the United States, Jackson amassed" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in United Kingdom" => "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in the United Kingdom" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Jackson continued to release singles through the 1970s" - "through the 1970s"?? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Both are certified Platinum [..] for sales in excess of 4 million and 2 million copies respectively" - platinum can't be awarded for both selling 2 million and 4 million, it can only be one or the other, surely? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, which topped the charts in 13 countries including United States" => ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, topped the charts in 13 countries including United States" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] "The single sold more than six million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million" => "The single sold more than 6 million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single to McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace" => " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single from McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy." - this makes no sense. I think what you mean is "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", as well as "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There", which was produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy." Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "making it one of Jackson's most successful single in the UK" => "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "sales of his previous work soared and Jackson became the first act to sell more than 1 million song downloads in the first week" - in the first week of what? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "Don't Matter to Me" was released as by Drake featuring Michael Jackson, so shouldn't it be in the "as featured artist" table? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am assuming that "other appearances" refers to releases where Jackson was not credited on the record as either a main or featured artist (eg he just did background vocals)? if so, why are two remixes of his own songs, on which he was obviously credited) in there? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Notes b, c and g do not need full stops as they are not complete sentences Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance in Forever, Michael in 1975" => "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance on Forever, Michael in 1975" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] "On August 23, 2018, Sony admitted in court that the vocals on the three Casico songs were not performed by Jackson" - no explanation is given as to who or what "Casico" is/was Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] That's what I got on a first pass. I also echo the comment above that there are a lot of formatting issues with the refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment "American singer Michael Jackson released 67 of his songs as singles, including 10 as a featured artist" - infobox has 67 as lead artist and 10 as featured artist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Won't screw this up... won't screw this up...

• "singles as lead artist, 10 as a featured" — and 10

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "singles Throughout the" — why is "Throughout" capitalised...?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "album Off the Wall (1979) spawned five" — I'm iffy on the usage of "spawned"... perhaps "contained" or something?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "released his sixth album Thriller" — comma after album

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "with Paul McCartney and" → with McCartney (MOS:SURNAME)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "album Bad (1987) produced" → album, Bad (1987), produced

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy." — this bit doesn't make any sense to me...

Pamzeis The current sentences were made per the suggestion of the above reviewer.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "album, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, a double album" — album, album; feels a bit repetitive

Pamzeis Do you have any suggestions to improve this?— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "features the hits" — MOS:PUFFERY?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "deal for $250 million which" — comma after million?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No prose concerns with the lede
• Note a should have a citation
• Image check: pass.
• Source check: Version reviewed
  • All refs to website links should have access dates (eg missing in: ref 6, ref 71, ref 72)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • All refs should have publisher information, if available (eg. ref 66)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 75 is a deadline

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 84: Why is Michael Jackson wikilinked in the title? This is unnecessary.

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • The refs should be consistent and either always Wikilink the publisher (ref 1 linking to ABC news) or never wikilink the publisher (ref 2 not linking Billboard)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why is a bibliography only used for George and Barrow? Considering that they are only cited once in the references, maybe this information should be moved to the references section?

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Suggest archiving all the websites

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 40, 41, 44, 51, 54, 58, 60, 75, 78, 83, 96, 104, 106, need an access date

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 41 should have a publication date

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 22, 29 (the word Top), 33 (second bullet point), 35 (the last bullet point), 44 should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 32s (the first bullet point), 82, 84, should have a page number
• Ref 40: The title needs to be fixed

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 57 should include the ISBN number

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @TheWikiholic: I took another look at the references and here are some thoughts. Version reviewed:

• Ref 5: wikilink to USA Today

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 21: Wikilink to Slant Magazine

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 24: Wikilink to Business Standard

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 28, bullet 1: Wikilink to RPM (magazine), I think

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 29: Website should be included in the ref

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 30: Wikilink to GfK Entertainment charts

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 31: Wikilink to Dutch Top 40

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 35: What makes everyHit a high-quality source? Where does it get its information from?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 35: What makes Zobbel a high-quality source? The website seems to be named "Chart Log UK"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 40: Should be formatted similarly to the same website in Ref 35

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 54: Missing date the article was published, author

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 59: Billboard should be wikilinked since it is linked in every previous reference.

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pause there, but ask that the FLC nominator check the rest of the references to ensure that everything that should be wikilinked is, and that all the references have the required information.

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic: to ping another user, you can use the {{re}} template, like so: @Z1720:. --PresN 15:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing source review:

• Ref 12: needs the author name

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Red 28, bullet 1 is a dead link
• Ref 59 does not go to the correct page

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 68 is a deadline.

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 77: Need the author name

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 79: Need to include the publisher (website name) in a different parameter

Fixed. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 79: What makes "directupload.net" a high quality source?

Fixed. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 80: Needs the author name

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 86: Remove wikilink for Michael Jackson

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 99: Change latimes.com to Los Angeles Times

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 102: needs a publisher

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 106: needs publisher date

Done. — TheWikiholic (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest archiving all websites

Z1720 Can you please help me to archive these as I don't know how to do it? .TheWikiholic (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic: Sorry for the late response on this. I ran IABot through the article which automatically archived the links. Let me know if you are ready for more comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with this source review. Version reviewed for the comments below:

• Ref 28: the publisher has been wikilinked in every iteration when possible, so all the RPM and Billboard publishers should have a wikilink.

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 29: What makes "top.france.free" a high-quality source?
• Ref 31: Is the publisher Dutch Top 40 or top40.nl? This should be standardised.

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 32, bullet 1: Needs page numbers
• Ref 33, bullet 1: Same as above
• Ref 41: Wikilink UPI to [[United Press International]

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 44: Wikilink to Official New Zealand Music Chart

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 55: Publisher should be Official Charts

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 57: Wikilink Vintage Books

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 59: Publisher should be Promusicae, wikilinked to Productores de Música de España

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 68: Wikilink to Australian Recording Industry Association

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 81: Publisher information is missing

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 82: What makes this a high-quality source? This seems to be a self-publishing publisher

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 86: The title format should be consistent with previous refs of the same website.

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 87: How/where was this accessed? Either needs a website or a page number

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this nomination has been up since April, with lots of comments, but no final verdicts. @RunningTiger123, ChrisTheDude, Pamzeis, and Z1720: are any of you willing to support/oppose? --PresN 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: - apologies, I forgot about this one. I will try and find the time to take another look -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has been sitting here for way too long, and I'm not going to try to ping reviewers back again. I've reviewed it myself, and I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 10 September 2022 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been newly created in the last few days following other FL examples such as List of songs recorded by Madonna. I want to demonstrate that an artist does not need to have a long career and 000s of releases to have things like a List of Songs page, and that for an artist like Ella Henderson who has written for others and released lots of featured singles good quality information can be found. I think this article is a good example of how these types of pages can look. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "both as a guest and collaborative vocalist" - aren't those just the same thing?

• I was trying to imply that Henderson has appeared as a co-lead and featured artist with other singers. Is that better wording?

• I would have thought just "guest vocalist" would cover it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Henderson began at a young age" - we all began at a young age :-) Think there are some words missing here

• fixed

• "according to her father Sean, At the age of two" - sentence seemingly ends with a comma

• fixed

• "entered the series nine" - either "the ninth series" or just "series nine", not "the series nine"

• fixed

• "Henderson would sign with" => "Henderson signed with"

• fixed

• "and begin work on her debut album" => "and began work on her debut album"

• fixed

• "Henderson would experience severe anxiety" => "Henderson experienced severe anxiety"

• fixed

• "between her first and second album" => "between her first and second albums"

• fixed

• "Between 2015 and 2019, Henderson would appear" => "Between 2015 and 2019, Henderson appeared"

• fixed

• Image caption: "American producer worked with Henderson on the song "The First Time"." - might be handy to mention his name :-D

• fixed

• There are multiple instances where you list different recordings of the same song separately. These are not different songs, so I see no real reason to list them separately. For example, for "Give Your Heart Away" or "Rockets", all the cells are identical, so you could simply have one row and put a footnote saying that an acoustic version was also available.

• fixed

• Notes are all complete sentences so need full stops

• fixed

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comments ChrisTheDude. I believe these have all been addressed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

• Note a: "This is a cover of the 1998 Cher of the same name." Pretty sure "song" needs to be added after the name here.

• fixed

• Note h: "A week later, second EP" needs "a" before "second".

• fixed

• This isn't a full source review, but I noticed that a bunch of references are missing publishers. I'd suggest added those before a source reviewer takes an interest in this page, to save time later. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Giants2008 in the past when I've tried to get GAs and FLs, publishers have been removed from websites and newspapers. If this is what is needed though, I've gone ahead and added in. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some biographical detail in the lede that I think is better placed in Henderson's main article, not here. A lot of text also makes it less likely that the reader will read it, especially if they are large paragraphs. I would suggest that the lede would focus on her musical inspirations for her songs. Some things that might be considered for removal are:

• "Henderson demonstrated interest in music as a toddler according to her father Sean. At the age of two Henderson could sing the song "Tomorrow" from the musical Annie," - Removing this information would mean that sentence would start with her learning piano at 10 and songwriting at 13, which I think are more important to highlight than early singing.
• removed
• "Between the ages of 11 and 16, Henderson honed her skills as a residential student at Tring Park School for the Performing Arts in Tring." I'm not sure this is necessary
• removed

• "Henderson would later be the opening act for his 2017 tour Back from the Edge as well as co-write the 2021 song "Let's Go Home Together" together." -> "Henderson became the opening act for his 2017 tour Back from the Edge and they co-write the 2021 song "Let's Go Home Together"." To tighten up the language.

• changed

• "Although a second album was in production as early as 2016, " -> "Although a second album was in production in 2016," To tighten up the language

• changed

• "Henderson's debut release for Major Tom's was also released," Delete also as unnecessary

• removed

• "At the same time, Henderson was co-lead artist on the song "Crazy What Love Can Do" with David Guetta and Becky Hill." I'm not sure what year this happened in based on the lede (my guess is 2022) but I suggest a reword to clarify when "at the same time" is

• I've fixed this

• Note c: Why doesn't this have a citation?

• I've added a reference for this

Image check

• No licencing concerns

• thanks

• It is difficult to see the Rudimental band in their image. Can the image be zoomed in, or a different image used?

• changed to slightly different image

• James Arthur's image has a large caption. Suggest cutting out most of the caption and just highlighting that they wrote a song together.

• changed

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 these have been done. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed- while I prefer publishers to be present, it's not required and you are consistent. Promoting. --PresN 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 5 September 2022 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has suitable coverage of the topic. I don't think you will find much else online about the Championship. I wasn't sure if I should attempt a featured list, or GA, nomination for the article but have plumped for FLC. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks for all comments and feedback to help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The lead seems very short at just four sentences, but maybe that's all there is to say?

• I'm not sure there is much else to include there, but always open to suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "women players" reads really oddly to me, as "women" isn't an adjective. Would "female players" work better?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "their progress in the game has been held back by sexism" - should this be in the past tense? or are they still held back in this way?

• Given that the relevant sources cited are from 1987 and 1999, I'll see if I can find something more recent. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was agreed with the Billiards Association and Control Council that the WBA would take over the running of the competition as a world championship, with the same trophy used in 1930, from 1932" - so who organised the 1931 tournament?

• Nicely spotted. I've amended the article and addded another source. For some reason the later books start with the 1931 tournament, so I think I just assumed that was when the WBA ran it from, without checking for consistency in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Think that's all I've got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• The Women's Professional Billiards Championship was an English billiards tournament run by Burroughes and Watts in 1930 and 1931, and from 1932 to 1950 by the Women's Billiards Association. - I feel like outlling saying "...was an English billiards tournament held from 1930 to 1950. The tournament was first organised by B&W in 1930 and 1931 before the WBA ran the event until it's conclusion in 1950" is a much cleaner way of saying this, it shows immediately the length of time the event was run for and then later gives detail. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the lede might benefit from some info on the locations of the events Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Gardiner only not being in the final one time is worth actively mentioning. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended per the above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info

• Sexism in cue sports seems to have endured. - we should 100% not be saying this in Wikipedia's voice. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "More recently" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• billiards games - I don't think this is right Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended to "cue sports". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• but that "Many attempts - lowercase M. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The prose says the event was called the Burwat Billiards Cup, but the tournament info section doesn't mention this as the name. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. (I also added an extra ref). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I totally forgot. Let me check! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Many thanks. Let me know if more is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating read.

• Mild concern that this is more likely to be a GA than an FL. If we had more critical coverage of the tournaments and finals (and after all, this article is about the competition itself, not just the finals) then we could probably get double the prose here.

• There is very limited coverage of most of the finals. Some of them get a few paragraphs in The Billiard Player, others almost nothing. There's not much depth in newspapers either. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Oh, and same applies for the other matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at some of the reports, and a lot of the details are not suitable to be summarised in Wikipedia. Examples from The Times, 18 May 1938; "[Billiards] it may be, is one of the most difficult of all games for women to play. Careful thought and assiduous practice have to given to it ..."; that year, The Billiard Player contained only passing coverage. Gardner's letter to the editor querying this was published, with a response "we will ... publish all news according to its value". (The June issue, which could have included the women's championship, did have room for reports on the London Busmen's championship and about Horace Lindrum intending to take a holiday in Italy.) On balance, I think keeping the article as a list (perhaps with some refocusing?) might be better than converting it to more a prose-based article, but I'll take advice. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, it's almost like the notes should be part of the main prose, in an expanded "History" section, and the table at the end just summarises the year/finalists/result etc.

• Perhaps, but it might be hard to make engaging prose out of it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Four-sentence lead is too brief for me by far.

Not done, yet. See below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't " Burroughes and Watts" be in the infobox as well as organisers?

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "1,000-960" en-dash. And was the aim to get to 1000 points? What were the winning criteria?

• Let me see if the sources cover the winning criteria, i.e. which years were first to a target and which were timed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like there are sources on this for some years, but not for all. Shall I add a sentence along the lines "In some years the match winner was the first to reach a pre-determined points target, and in other years the winner was the player to score most points in a set playing time."? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's good. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "John Roberts Jr" missing a full stop after Jr?

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "company Burroughes and Watts organised" you linked this previously...

• De-linked. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dislike the split in tables, maybe just footnote or have a row span for the different titles.

• Combined with row span, happy to amend again. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Carpenter averaged 11.92 " unexplained what this "average" means.

• Added, to the effect that it's "points per visit", with a cuegloss link to visit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "1,000-563" en-dash. There are several of these, check throughout.

• I think I amended them all now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "1,992–1,531, ,2162–1,795, " odd stuff here.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I enjoyed it, but have some concerns... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you. I look forward to your further advice following my responses; I'll expand the lead after hearing from you. (Scope of the lead might change depending on other changes to the article.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: If you get a chance, please let me know what you think about my responses and the next steps. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with the changes made thus far and just one response above. Also reasonably content this can remain as FLC. I am sporadic at the moment, for which I apologise, so consider this a support at this point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 in the second table becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead, e.g. |rowspan=2|British Women's Billiards Tournament becomes !scope=rowgroup rowspan=2|British Women's Billiards Tournament
• 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 19:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, PresN. Please could you have a look to see if I have properly addressed this? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• Looks fine. --PresN 16:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the article is for a tournament that ended in 1950, I am confused as to how events in 2018, 2019 and 2021 relate to this tournament. I think this information would be better placed in a general article about woman's cue sports, and not in this article

• this was my over-enthusiastic response to the review comment "should this be in the past tense? or are they still held back in this way?". I've relegated it to a footnote, but happy to remove it completely if that's better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the same trophy used from 1930, from 1932." I am very confused by this and I'm not sure what it's trying to tell me. I think the sentence needs to be rearranged

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that there was a 7 year gap from 1941-1947. Why is this not mentioned in the history section, and the reason why it did not run?

• Added this in, with some tweaks around it. I couldn't find anything in sources about why the tournament didn't happen in 1946 or 1947; in September 1946 it was announced that there were three entrants, and in April 1947 that a tournament would take place two weeks after the men's championship, but 1948 was the first post-war staging. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image check: pass.
• The caption for the last image is missing a bracket.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Strebor v Collins at English billiards (1906).jpg (the first image) is missing alt text

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Source check: Version reviewed
  • Ref 2: Suggest archiving the link.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 4: Since this is an offline source, is there a page number?

• There wasn't in the database I used, but the article can be found online so I added the url. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ref 15 and 19: These appear to be the same refs. I suggest merging the citations.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Z1720. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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