Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2023

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is in line with the standards for the Snooker world ranking lists for the previous years which are featured lists. In 1980/1981, Ray Reardon still topped the rankings as he had since 1976. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Add Template:Use British English or other
• Aren't refs 3 and 5 to the same site?
• Location use in the refs is inconsistent; ref 1 has the city, while ref 7 has the same publisher but no city, yet ref 8 has a city and it has no publisher

BennyOnTheLoose, nothing else from me, another great article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. I've amended the article. I didn't add the publisher for The Guardian, which is Guardian Newspapers, as Template:Cite news advises that "Omit [publisher] where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing, you know what you are doing with these lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• as he had been for each year since the 1976/1977 list." - "1976/1977 list" can be linked to Snooker world rankings 1976/1977
• Wikilink parity to Parity (sports)
• "but in 1980/1981" - but in the 1980/1981 list
• "The article in Snooker Scene magazine discussing the ranking list for 1980/1981"- for the 1980/1981 season

That's all I have for this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've made the amendments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has 20 WHS and 12 on the tentative list. Standard style for this type of articles. The list for Costa Rica is already seeing support so I am adding another nomination. Tone 08:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Canada just got two new sites listed while this nomination is ongoing, so the lists do change every now and then. UNESCO lately started to use rather truncated texts at the site descriptions, so I am leaving the web-archived nomination refs as well. Tone 08:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Canada has served as a member of the World Heritage Committee four times, 1976–1978, 1985–1991, 1995–2001, and 2005–2009. - after "four times" I suggest using a colon instead of a comma
• Centuries use "th" per MOS:CENTURY - looking specifically at "11-century", but there may be other instances
• The complex contains eight turf houses, three of which were dwellings, one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair. - using commas for "three of which were dwellings" makes it look like part of the list; use parantheses to avoid confusion: "The complex contains eight turf houses (three of which were dwellings), one forge, and four workshops used for ship repair.
• The site at Joggins has produced some of the best fossil record from the Carboniferous period... - fossil record? Do you mean fossil records? Or possibly fossils recorded?
• a historical photo from Chilkoot Pass in 1898 is shown - replace shown with "pictured"
• No image for Qajartalik?
• The landscape in the high Arctic is defined by ice, however... - semicolon after ice

Tone, all done, very nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking! Fossil record is the correct term, and there is no free image for Qajartalik (the one in the dedicated article is fair use, which does not fly in this one). Fixed the rest. Tone 16:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--金色黎明 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• "The rivers" You don't mention any rivers that this could refer to previously.
• "is the breeding ground" a breeding ground, whooping crane has two breeding populations.
• "exhibit mountain landscape" landscapes?
• "Landlocked freshwater fjords, glacier-scoured headlands" needs a conjunction
• "present on a small area" in a small area?
• "some of the best fossil record" pluralize
• "brought around tens of thousands of prospectors" Tens of thousands is already approximate, around is redundant.
• "assemblies at the Anticosti Island" remove "the".
• "and they disappeared" "They" seems kind of unnecessary.
• All I got, mostly just nit-picking on prose. Close enough to a support, but prose issues should still be addressed. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! I believe "fossil record" is singular, as it is a separate term, not "records". For Dorset, I wanted to highlight that they have not met Thule people as they have disappeared before their arrival. Tone 15:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If record is singular, it should be "one of the best fossil records" instead of "some of". AryKun (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Works with me :) Tone 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference formatting and reliability looks okay across the board. Unfortunately, it appears as if the site hosting the link-checker tool has bitten the dust, so I can't do that check, at least not without knowledge of a replacement tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another bird list, this time the somewhat larger and lot more homogenous family that is the tapaculos. There are technically 65 species recognized by the IOU, but I'd say around 40 of them are clones of each other that no sane person would bother differentiating; taxonomists are not particularly good at avoiding such activities, so here we are. Have at it! AryKun (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SilverTiger

Ooh, another list!

I'm hoping to get through a nice portion of the non-passerines before the end of the year, especially the smaller (<50 species) orders and families.

Nice, you can probably expect me to show up at a fair number of them. I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but are hummingbirds or owls likely to show up soon? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to do the smaller orders, hummingbirds is really really huge. I'll probably do it at genus level (113 genera) and then also have separate species-level lists for four of the subfamilies (Florisuginae, Phaethornithinae, Lesbiinae [this is definite DYK bait], and Trochilinae). Owls is also probably done best at genus level, and then I don't really know what rank you could have a species-level list at. AryKun (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strigidae and Tytonidae are the next level below Strigiformes, which makes it the natural division for the lists. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strigidae has like 200 species by itself, but does seem to have three subfamilies, so I guess you could makes lists for those. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out, List of parrots is 402 species and is currently an FL. So lists of several hundred species are definitely possible. But it is ultimately your call. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of parrots is honestly absurdly long and needs to be split up to be of use. At that length, the reader's eyes are probably going to glaze over a fourth of the way through; any list longer than 150 species is probably too long. AryKun (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably could be split along superfamily or family lines, true. But nonetheless I would hesitate to make lists for anything below family level (at least for vertebrates), with few exceptions. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see we shouldn't make lists of families at genus level and then make subfamily lists at species level. Some of the larger passerine families (tanagers, Old World flycatchers, tyrant flycatchers) would be really unwieldy at species level. AryKun (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...best detected by their vocalizations. and ...are best identified by their vocalizations. - repetition.
  • Changed second instance to "calls"
• Is the plural tapaculos or tapaculo? You seem to use both in the lede.
  • Both are alright I think, changed to "tapaculos" everywhere to be consistent.
• ...with more than 30 species being described from the region. "having been described", or "endemic to that region".
  • Changed to "having been described".
• ...are difficult to differentiate on the basis of appearance and are generally described based on the basis of genetic data...
  • Done.
• Conventions and Classification sections are good.
• "Boa Nova tapaculo" redirects to an article under a different name. Why the difference?
  • Article's at the wrong name, IOC uses Boa Nova on the checklist.
• The rest of the table itself looks fine, although you're right those are a bunch of "small brown birds" that most people including me would not bother to tell apart. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilverTiger12, I've replied to all of your comments. AryKun (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one else seems interested:

• Spot checks of sources 3, 22, 44, and 62 match what they're being cited for.
• All citations are to reliable source.
• No copyvio per Earwig (really, I think copyvio in these lists is night impossible)

Therefore, pass source review. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be a really special kind of editor add copyvio into an article with essentially 2 paragraphs of non-boilerplate text. AryKun (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Looks like there's very little wrong here, so I wouldn't be surprised to find no issues. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Support - Yeah, I got nothing, excellent work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• "Tapaculos are ... best detected by their vocalizations. [one sentence] Tapaculos are ... best identified by their calls.": Oops. Should be combined somehow.
  • But neither of those sentences are about their vocalizations, and the vocalizations bits are to emphasize other aspects. In the first one, it's to emphasize their secretiveness and how hard they are to detect, and in the second, it's to emphasize how similar they look and how hard they are to visually differentiate.
• "International Union for Conservation of Nature. [7 sentences] International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species": This isn't a mistake, since opinions vary on how many things from the lead can or should be repeated in the text below the lead, and the second sentence is (just) below the lead. But I think "(IUCN)" would work better after the first mention, and then the second mention could be "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species".
  • It's not in the lead, so I don't really see a reason to change it.
• Chestnut-throated huet-huet, Ochre-flanked tapaculo: range doesn't match the map.
  • Fixed; consequence of having a lot of repetitive text copy-pasted.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Otherwise, nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I 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 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 least two images don't have alt text; I stopped checking images at this point.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next animal list is taking some time to sort out, so lets check out something different! Way back in 2012, I took the then-five categories of the Nebula Awards through FLC, following the 15+ lists on scifi/fantasy awards I'd already done. At the time, I thought I was done, but in 2019 the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America added a category for "game writing". I let it sit and grow for a while, adding the Ray Bradbury Award in 2020 when they retroactively made it official, but at this point it's been around long enough to be counted alongside the 50-year-old+ categories that already have FLs. It's still a bit of an odd duck—the Nebulas are mostly followed by book-readers, so with this list sitting in the intersection of SFF writing and video games it doesn't get much mainstream press on its own. It gets to tag along with the other categories, however, so here we are. This list follows the same conventions as the other seven Nebula lists, as well as the other 30+ SFF award FLs I've done, so hopefully everything is ship-shape. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "is one of the Nebula Awards [....] defined as "an interactive or playable story-driven work which conveys narrative, character, or story background"" - as it currently reads it says the award is defined as an interactive etc etc, whereas in fact it is awarded for something defined thus
• "The first year was won by" - he didn't literally win the year. Maybe "The first year's award was won by".....? (and similar for the rest of that paragraph)
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Okay, reworked both issues, thanks! --PresN 16:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

• Aight, I don't think there's anything else in my concerns, it looks very much ready for FL now, so I'm supporting! (also I have a peer review up if you're not so busy and interested to check out). GeraldWL 05:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck necessarry. Since there's so few sources, it won't take too long, so why not a regular review as well. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Interactive fiction developer Choice of Games has had the most games nominated with six over four years. - just to clarify this, I think "a total of" should be added before "six over four years"; otherwise, seeing these dates next to each other is a bit confusing
• Why does "No award" exist in the key if it's not present in the table? Is there even a possibility of there being no award?
• All refs must use same casing (title case or sentence case); the former looks more professional, and right now the refs section uses a mix. Since most already use sentence case (albeit the titles with proper nouns) just downsizing ref 3 to "Nebula rules" would do the trick
• Ref 2 is dead

PresN, that's all I got, very nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: All done, though as an aside, in 15 years here I've never heard of the idea that references need to have consistent title vs sentence casing, as opposed to mirroring the style of the cited source. --PresN 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the casing rule was something I learned from other FACs and FLCs. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Support: Not finding any issues (did a reference check and general check). Good job! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – Easy one to review in this regard as there are no images used in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First season has three supports, so I'll go ahead with the second! Like last season, this one also influenced current events; the president of FIFA resigned two days after an episode aired on the 212015 corruption scandal, and in another instance, New York's bail policy was changed after a LWT episode aired on the topic. Excited for comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Image review: Passed
  • Image isrelevant
  • Image is appropriately licensed
  • Image has alt text

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Link checker not currently working, so I can't check with that

Looks good! Support -- Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes -- on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes
• than Trevor Noah-hosted The Daily Show. -- than the Trevor Noah-hosted The Daily Show
• I would link the first instance of The Daily Show, and suggest including the network Comedy Central to precede it.
• That's all I got. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pseud 14, all done, thank you so much for the prompt review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on their" => "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on its" (show is singular)
• "They also highlighted" - who is "they"?
• "on the teams selection process" => "on the team's selection process"
• "Oliver worked as the British Correspondent" - no need for capital on correspondent
• "David Waywell writing in The Spectator opined that the first seasons of Last Week Tonight" => "David Waywell writing in The Spectator opined that the first seasons of Last Week Tonight" Do you mean simply the first (in which case "seasons" should be singular) or the first few (in which case I would suggest changing "first" to "early" for total clarity)
• "The premiere broadcast of season two received 720,000 viewers [....] for the night, the episode garnered 846,000 viewers" - I have to confess I don't understand this. How did it receive both amounts of viewers?
• "had average 1.396 million total viewers per episode," => "had an average 1.396 million total viewers per episode," or "averaged 1.396 million total viewers per episode,"
• "a system that Oliver accused of disproportionately affected" => "a system that Oliver accused of disproportionately affecting"
• "the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced the city" => "the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced that the city"
• "though, Oliver later denied influencing the decision, stating" => "Oliver later denied influencing the decision, however, stating"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude all fixed, thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staking a claim here. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would review this, since I love LWT (quite coincidentally, the LWT studio is within a stone's throw of my workplace).

Quick comments:

• Lead, paragraph 1: "The season was produced by Avalon Television, the executive producers were host John Oliver, Tim Carvell, and Liz Stanton" - The comma after "Television" should be a semicolon, otherwise you have a run-on sentence like this.
• Lead, paragraph 2: "The show continued to release the main stories of each episode on its YouTube channel after airing." - I'd rephrase the last part of this sentence slightly, e.g. "after each episode aired".
• Production, paragraph 1: "Tim Carvell, John Oliver, and Liz Stanton were the executive producers on the season, with Diane Fitzgerald as producer. Writers include Oliver, Carvell, Kevin Avery, Josh Gondelman, Dan Gurewitch, Geoff Haggerty, Jeff Maurer, Scott Sherman, Will Tracy, Jill Twiss, and Juli Weiner. Paul Pennolino directed the season." - Is there a reason that this paragraph goes from past to present to past tense?
• Production, paragraph 2: "The material also highlighted the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel, where the main stories of each episode were released after airing." - Out of curiosity, was the previous season not on YouTube?
• Production, paragraph 2: "the size of the research team at Last Week Tonight was increased from one researcher to four" - I'd just say "the research team at Last Week Tonight was expanded from one researcher to four".

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, the previous season was definitely on YouTube after the Scottish Independence Referendum episode- this is mentioned in the season one article. I'm not sure if the others were (looking at the channel itself, it seems like some segments were posted along with various ads, but they don't seem to be in order or broadcast). Got everything else (can't believe I caught those typos)- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

• Critical reception: "Lucas Kavner writing in Vulture called it, "easily the most enjoyable way to relive some of this year’s most infuriating news."" - I would remove the comma after "called it". (Conversely, I'd optionally put commas before and after "writing in Vulture", but it's not necessary, and you'd have to change "David Waywell writing in The Spectator" and ""Government Surveillance" was rated the best episode of the season by Matthew Strauss writing in Inverse".)
• Ratings: "after replays, the episode garnered 846,000 viewers." - Does this include both the premiere broadcasts and reruns. but not YouTube views?
• Influence: "Episode fifteen of season two covered the 2015 FIFA corruption case, being the second time Last Week Tonight covered FIFA." - I'd reword this, as you pretty much say "covered FIFA" twice.
• Influence: "A month after the episode aired, the mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio announced that the city would lower bail requirements for people accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes;[18][26] Oliver later denied influencing the decision, however, stating that the requirements were already in the process of being changed when the episode aired.[27]" - Do we need to say "however"? If not, could these just be two separate sentences?

I don't see any other issues with this list. Once these issues are resolved, I think I can support this FLC. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, I didn't include the "writing in __" so it conforms with the other season articles, but I definitely see how it could be helpful. For "after replays", I double checked the source and realized it was talking about the end of s1... my bad, thanks for bringing that up. Fixed everything else accordingly- thank you so much for the review on this and s3! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am happy to support as it looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the {{Episode table}} template, you add them by adding a |caption= parameter, e.g. |caption=caption_text. It defaults to not being visible, so if you want to change that, add |show_caption=y as well. Note that I think I missed this on the Season 1 list, so please add it there as well.
• 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 21:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @PresN, added thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): 金色黎明 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have rewrited all of list, and added a lot of content following the format of other Featured Lists 金色黎明 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the default width of the new Vector skin, the side bars can't be next to the three columns of "Key for parties". This results in a lot of whitespace (and also columns that are wider than my screen). Not sure how to fix it, but would be nice to have less whitespace:) Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The sidebar is unnecessary, I have delete it. 金色黎明 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For citations, use the date format common in the United States per MOS:DATETIES: for instance, "June 28, 2023" instead of "28 June 2023".
• "since American Revolution" → "since the American Revolution"
• "Since 1988" – Connecticut voted for Bush in 1988, so it should be "Since 1992"
  • Also, you shift from discussing the Federalist Party to the elections in the last 30 years, and you seem to imply that there was a single shift that occurred, skipping over 150 years of history and several key shifts in between.
• "for the Democratic candidates who are liberalism" – doesn't make sense
• "1788-89" → "1788–89" (use en dash instead of hyphen; occurs once in footnote and once in section heading)
• "Federalist party" → "Federalist Party"
• "As a part of ... from 1796 to 1816." – this sentence is a comma splice
• "And before 1820..." – don't start a sentence with "And"
• "However, Connecticut had not voted for the Federalist party since 1820." – misleading: the Federalists essentially collapsed as a party around that time, so of course Connecticut didn't vote for them
• "Runner-up (nationally)" – shouldn't this just be "Runner-up"? (occurs in two tables)
• Martin Van Buren should sort by "Van Buren", not "Buren" (occurs three times)
• In 1976, Ford's vote total needs a comma

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I have corrected all of them and expand the content about its political evolution. 金色黎明 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• Two dates still need to be fixed (in refs. 6 and 7)
• "connecticut was lean to the anti-Jackson candidates" → "Connecticut leaned towards the anti-Jackson candidates"
• Capitalize "Civil War"
• "was the stronghold of Republican" → "was a Republican stronghold"
• Don't use "'s" after "Connecticut Republican Party"
• "Except Eisenhower and Reagan obtained landslide victory across the country in 1956 and 1984 respectively." – poor grammar, but it's probably better to remove the line entirely instead of fixing it
• "in presidential election from 1796 to 1816" → "in presidential elections from 1796 to 1816"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksfor your advice, I've correct all of them 金色黎明 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "As part of the Thirteen Colonies, Connecticut has participated" => "One of the original Thirteen Colonies, Connecticut has participated"
• "Since the Civil War, Connecticut was" => "Following the Civil War, Connecticut was"
• "until it was dominated by Republicans after 1896.[5] From 1896 to 1932, Connecticut was a Republican stronghold" - any way to combine these two bits, which essentially say the same thing?
• "its advantage was no longer as significant as it was then" => "its advantage was no longer as significant as it had previously been"
• Notes A and C are not complete sentences so don't need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your attention and pertinent advice. I've corrected the article according to your suggestion. 金色黎明 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed, will focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated to sourcing, but watch for false titles in the lead- I'm looking at During this period, Connecticut Republican Party leader J. Henry Roraback built up...
• Replace Britannica sources (refs 1 and 2) with other sources (see WP:BRITANNICA)- there's certainly many American history textbooks that support the first sentence
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• All citations must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) in their titles, per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 3 needs page numbers. To be consistent with other citations, I'd suggest putting the citation under "Works cited" and using sfns (that is, unless both uses of it are on the same page)
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 30 and 31: quotes in quotes should use apostrophes
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Either wikilink all publishers/works or wikilink none for consistency
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 57: I don't think citing 12 pages from a book is verifiable. There's definitely a source somewhere that makes the generalized statement you;re trying to support with all those pages.
  •  Done: Changed--金色黎明 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• What is ref 174 supporting? The page just seems to have lots of documents about the 2023 special elections.
  •  Done:Renewed--金色黎明 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Under "Works cited": why do the last two sources have LCCN and OL numbers, but the first doesn't?
  •  Done--金色黎明 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

金色黎明, that's all from me, nice work on. The color usage in the tables is very visually appealing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MyCatIsAChonk:: Thanks for your advices, I have corrected all of them--金色黎明 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @金色黎明: History.com must be replaced, it is not reliable per WP:RSPHISTORY MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MyCatIsAChonk:: Done--金色黎明 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Cannot find anything wrong with the list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica has four WHS and one site on the tentative list. With the lists for Panama and Yemen just promoted, I am this time nominating a shorter list. Standard format. I am saving some longer ones for later (Canada, Argentina, India are more or less ready - suggestions which one to run next welcome!) Tone 08:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Actualcpscm

Thanks for this nomination! I only have one real comment:

• It would be good to clarify this sentence: Costa Rica accepted the convention on 23 August 1977. What does "accepted" here mean? If they became signatory to the convention, did they ratify it on the same day?

Regarding your next list, I'd like to suggest Germany. By the way, what do you think about the maps used in that list? That's potentially useful. If Germany is an acceptable option for you, I'd be happy to work on it with you. I also speak German, so that might help with the sources. Thanks again for your work! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratified, indeed, per source. Fixed. Ha, yes, I may try to work on Germany once I am done with the current one. It will be a long one but interesting. Tone 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll get started with Germany :) It'd only be my second FLC, and the first is still ongoing. So if you want to hop in at some point, just let me know. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Follow the style of other FLs and use UNESCO sources as the primary material, in particular the actual justifications at criteria, and it should go smooth. I think I was mostly skipping Germany so far because of the map, but hey, it worked for Italy, so ... :D Tone 16:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Add Template:Use British English or similar
• ...including three bird and two reptile. - plural? If not, amend it with "species" to clarify
• Wl pelagic species to pelagic fish
• Stretching from the Pacific coast across the mountain range with the highest peak Rincón de la Vieja at 1,916 metres (6,286 ft) (pictured) to the lowlands on the Caribbean side, the area comprises numerous habitats. - the dependent clause in this is rather large, I think it could use a bit of rearranging- perhaps, "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja, the mountain range with the highest peak at 1,916 metres (6,286 ft) (pictured), the area comprises numerous habitats."
• Anytime "(pictured)" is referring to an image, I suggest italicizing it
• Some of them reach more than 2.5 metres... - "some of the spheres..."

That's all from me, great work, as usual! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! As for italicizing "pictured", this has been raised before. The thing is, some times I am using just (pictured), on other occasions this is a part of the sentence, so by not italicizing I am keeping it consistent. Tone 16:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "This the only cultural site in Costa Rica" => "This is the only cultural site in Costa Rica"
• "Most of the land is covered by tropical rainforests, however, there are also" => "Most of the land is covered by tropical rainforests, however there are also"
• "The Costa Rican part of the site has been initially listed independently in 1983" => "The Costa Rican part of the site was initially listed independently in 1983"
• "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja, the mountain range with the highest peak of 1,916 metres (6,286 ft)" => "Stretching from the Pacific coast across Rincón de la Vieja,a mountain range with a highest peak of 1,916 metres (6,286 ft)"
• "The sites remained safe from looting due to thick layers of sediments than covered them" => "The sites remained safe from looting due to thick layers of sediments that covered them"
• That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I fixed all but the last, I do not find the difference between the original and suggested wording... Tone 19:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I added bold to make it clearer -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it :) Tone 20:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I see that this has been listed as need a source review- why not? No spotcheck, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4: Remove "UNESCO World Heritage Center" from the citation title
• Ref 11 links to a page about Panama City?

Tone, little concerns over this, lovely work as usual. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! I guess a copy-paste error from Panama article on ref 11, good you spotted it :) Tone 15:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass - also, if you get some time, I'd appreciate any comments at this FLC or this one; thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is #7 in the series of NFL annual statistical leaders. The formatting is based on past successful featured lists from the series and, if successful, would mark the completion of rushing related stats. As always, I will do my best to respond and make changes as quickly as possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is my first time reviewing an FLC, so please bear with me :)
• Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league, similar to the one at List of National Football League annual rushing yards leaders#Most rushing titles or List of National Football League annual passing touchdowns leaders#Most seasons leading the league? If not, add it
• In the first image caption, you say "LaDainian Tomlinson holds the single-season rushing touchdowns record, rushing for 28 touchdowns in 2006." The two instances of rushing so close together seems a little clunky, maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns".
• These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season?
• Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. While I would prefer it, I do get the rational behind not including one. ULPS (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the feedback @ULPS.

  • Is there a reason there is no table listing the players with the most seasons leading the league... – Not really except that we haven't really standardized whether it should be included or not. You pointed to the two of the five NFL annual leader FLs that have such a table, while the other three FL do not. Never the less, after giving it some thought, I do think the table is useful so I've gone ahead and added it.
  • ...maybe change that second one to "running for 28 touchdowns". – Done
  • These next two are more nitpicks and probably optional. The lede seems a little sparse, perhaps add something about the few players who achieved over 20 rushing touchdowns in one season? – Added a mention that there has been eleven instances where a player has rushed for over 20 touchdowns in a season and that only two players have done so twice.
  • Perhaps add a key to the AFL annual rushing touchdowns leaders section. – I went back and forth on this one prior to the nomination. NFL lists are inconsistent when it comes to including the key in the AFL section, with the assumption apparently being that people will reference the key above the NFL table. After giving it some thought, we can't really go wrong by having the key relisted in the AFL section as well. I've included a key with the active player and HoF portion of the key removed, as those are not relevant to the AFL table (no active or HoF players in the table).

  I hope I've addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you think anything else can be improved. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - ULPS (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

• The "most seasons leading the league" table doesn't include Cookie Gilchrist or Abner Haynes, so apparently it only includes the NFL players......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: That was a mistake on my part. When creating that "most seasons leading the league" I was looking at the NFL table and forgot to include the AFL table. I've now included both of those players in the table. Thank you for catching this, I feel silly having missed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! One of these days I'll stump you :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Short description should be at the top. See MOS:ORDER
• Priest Holmes is linked twice in the lead.
• Is there a better |website= name for ref 8, 9 and 10

-- EN-Jungwon 10:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon:

• Short description has been moved to the top
• Priest Holmes is no longer linked twice
• I did not find a better website name for ref 8, but I did change the website name for refs 9, 10, and 13 here. Is this satisfactory?

Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 16:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Happy to do a source review! No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. Will do soon- ping me if I forget by tomorrow! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 3's archived link isn't displaying anything for me, likely because Flash was deprecated
• Ref 7 is displaying an error page for me
• Ref 10: remove "| Official Site of the Dallas Cowboys" from title
• Are the following reliable:
  • Sports Betting Dime
  • profootballnetwork.com (also, shouldn't this be formatted not as a url; "Pro Football Network" is what's in the logo at the top)
  • Pro Football History

Hey man im josh, all done, lovely work! Impressed you discovered my WikiCup strategy ;) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk, thank you so much for the feedback!

• Ref 3's archive link works fine for me. Ref 2 & 3 both do not have "archived" hyperlinked because they have the archive link as the main link (dead link parameter). They instead have "the original" hyperlinked, which leads to the dead pages in question. Is this by any chance what you're referring to?
• Ref 7 is a dead link and I made a mistake by not marking the reference as such. I've now marked the reference as a dead url.
• Ref 10 -- done.
• Reliability of references:
  • Sports Betting Dime – I do believe, given the context, we should be able to trust the definition of a football statistic from a betting website. Never the less, I've added an additional reference from a website called "Sports Charts" which I've seen used a fair bit in articles related to football definitions. It backs up the definition and I think, at least together, the references should be adequete.
  • Pro Football Network – Formatting fixed. It's contextually reliable and the information on the page is verifiable. This is used for ref 9 and the sentence before its usage uses ref 1. Ref 1 shows some of the same information but in a different format. I've added ref 1 to the the same sentence that I used this site for.
  • Pro Football History – The site can be crufty, that's for sure, but I've always found the "facts" they state to be verifiable. In this case, the reference is used to verify the fact that John Riggins led the league in 1983 with the first 20+ rushing touchdowns season, which can be seen in the table itself. Additionally, I thought it might be relevant to share the stat leaders the same year, just in case someone else had beat him to 20 TDs that year, which no one did (Eric Dickerson was second with 18 TDs). While I could have left that statement without a reference, I did think it was better to include that reference as opposed to just letting people look at the table.

I hope I've addressed all your concerns. If not, I'm more than happy to make further changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, the Wayback Machine page linked at ref 3 is still broken. I mean this in that I see the page's header and border, and tehn along the border, the tab titled "The Run" is selected. But, no content is displaying below it. Everything else looks good, great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: I see now. I believe I've resolved the issue by pointing to a slightly different target which contained the relevant information. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the photos have appropriate free licenses. The lead image lacks alt text, unlike the rest, so it would be nice to see that taken care of. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Giants2008: Fixed, thank you for catching that. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Nominator(s): ULPS (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second National Football League FLC. This list documents the 21 seasons played by the Houston Texans in the NFL. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I would lose the rather meta "The list documents the season-by-season records of the Houston Texans' franchise from 2002 to present, including postseason records, and league awards for individual players or head coaches." It's fairly obvious that an article entitled "List of Houston Texans seasons" would document "the season-by-season records of the Houston Texans' franchise" so there's no need to state it in prose.
• Merge the second, very short, paragraph with the first
• Both keys show multiple items not actually used in the table - there's no need for this, especially the massive awards key, seven of the entries in which aren't needed
• Conversely, "WPMOY" is in the table but not in the key
• O'Brien image caption needs a full stop
• In the same caption, the words "in the NFL" aren't needed, as where else would he have coached them?
• You are inconsistent in the table with regards to re-linking names used multiple times. The coaches whose names appear twice are only linked on the first usage, yet JJ Watts is linked four times. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I addressed all of your comments. For the "key" section referring to playoff success (super bowl wins, conference wins, etc.) I think it's worth keeping for the sake of parity with the other List of seasons FLs, as well as on the unlikely chance that the Texans actually become good. Plus, it is pretty small compared to that awards key lol, which I have shrunk to the only 3 awards actually mentioned. ULPS (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not cited in 2016 Houston Chronicle source:
  • The team was owned by Bob McNair until his death in 2018," - bolded part only
  • "following McNair's death, the majority ownership of the team went to his wife, Janice."
  • "The Texans are the youngest franchise currently competing in the NFL"

• Pro-Football-Reference:
  • Texans were 3rd in 2017, not 4th
  • 2017 Awards Voting doesn't have Walter Payton Man of the Year for Watt. The source can be swapped out with this Pro-Football-Reference source.

• Not cited by Sporting News
  • "They are the only franchise to have never won a road playoff game"
  • "the only one to have never appeared in a conference championship game."
  • "and division rival Jacksonville Jaguars." - Sporting News doesn't specify the Jaguars are the rivals to the Texans.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources for all and just removed the division rival bit, it was kinda crufty anyway. ULPS (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all set. 2 points left. 1) Dawson 2019 only mentions Janice McClain as the owner, so majority isn't needed. 2) McClain 2016 no longer needed as NFL citation verifies the youngest team sentence. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, all done now :) ULPS (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Thank you for the quick changes :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hey man im josh

This is my first FLC review, so I'm sorry if I've missed anything. The list appears to meet all of the featured list critera, having an appropriate style, structure, prose, and lead while comprehensively covering the defined scope. Knit picks:

• J. J. Watt has won three DPOY awards and one WPMOY award while playing for the Texans – I think this caption under the J. J. Watt picture reads better if you remove the word "has".
• Bill O'Brien served as the head coach of the Houston Texans from 2014 to 2020... – I would lose "of the Houston Texans" from this caption.
• Is there a reason you chose not to include a win percentage column, similar to the ones at List of Chicago Bears seasons and List of Detroit Lions seasons? The inclusion of such a column is inconsistent across pages in Category:National Football League teams seasons, but I thought I'd ask about it.

I'm not finding much to critique with this list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first two changes. I think the win percentage column isn't needed. Most of the season FLs don't have it, and it's not needed for understanding as the number of games played has stayed mostly the same. Plus, it would make that huge table even huger. Basically, some downsides with almost no gain. Hope that makes sense. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Hey man im josh (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Finish becomes !scope=col | Finish. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. You have this on most of them, but are missing "Regular season" and the 3 below it.
• 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. !{{nfly|2002}} becomes !scope=row | {{nfly|2002}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Honestly kinda embarassed I missed that, but I believe I have gotten to fixing all of those issues :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this page is currently listed with a source reviewed needed, I thought I'd look it over.

• Link checker shows no issues
• References are all reliable for the information being reported
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent publisher/website formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable

Source review passed. I already supported above, but I support still / harder now. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Hate to say it, but why are super bowl wins, conference wins, and wild card berths listed in the key if they're not present in the table?

Support - my comment is really just a minor detail, I see no other issues- great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could remove them I guess, but as I mentioned earlier it is a small key and it helps for parity with every other FL related to NFL seasons. The Texans are uniquely bad in this regard I suppose, usually teams have a little more to show than divisional championships. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All photos used in the article have appropriate free licenses and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list for 1974 has already got three supports, so I figure there's no harm in nominating 1975. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe worth linking black music
• including one which spent two weeks in the top spot but non-consecutively - spent two non-consecutive weeks
• would achieve little further success in chart terms - perhaps it can be written as moderate success instead?
• for the table header add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
• Suggest tweaking the caption for the Staples singers (as you did with the 1972 list) to avoid the parenthetical within a parenthetical.
• That's all I got. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - many thanks, all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "related African American-oriented music genres; the chart has undergone various name changes over the decades to reflect the evolution of such genres" - do you think this sentence could do without the "of such genres" part to avoid repetition?
• Either "top" or "topped" appears in every single sentence in the lead's last paragraph. Some variation is possible if you use "summit", "crowned", "pinnacle", or something like that. (apologies for my weird suggestions, you may be able to think of something better)
• "Ten of 1975's soul number ones also topped the all-genre Hot 100 listing." - Maybe avoid starting the sentence with a number: "Among 1975's soul number ones, ten also topped the all-genre Hot 100 listing."
• "had already topped the Hot 100 in late 1974, and reached the top of the soul chart" - I believe there shouldn't be a comma here.
• Image review passes as far as I can tell since everything seems to be properly licensed and in line with other lists in this series.--NØ 07:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think with this edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--NØ 19:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Sources all seem to be reliable enough and are well formatted. I'm not finding any issues and neither is the link checker.
• Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

Support - excellent work as always- happy to have no comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Billboard's all-genre Hot 100 chart" - Source is needed to show Hot 100 is for all genres in 1974, otherwise all-genre should be dropped.
• "The Ohio Players reached the summit of both charts during 1975...the Hot 100 in early 1976." - I think the 1975 Hot 100 chart should be cited again and adjacent to the 1976 Hot 100 chart cited in this sentence. This is because Fire was #1 in 1975 while Love Rollercoaster was #1 in 1976. The only citation in the sentence is the 1976 chart.
• "which would go on to be one of the most successful acts in the disco genre" - not sure if Kallen states this. It mentions KC and the Sunshine Band was one of the artists that had a disco #1. It doesn't say that KC and the Sunshine Band had a successful disco career.
• "reached number one on the listing for the first time in 1975" - Kool & the Gang reached #1 with Hollywood Swinging during 1974. Therefore this part and page 246 citation should be removed from Whitburn 1988.
• "New Birth gained the only number ones of their respective careers" - Whitburn 1988 page number for New Birth is 305, not 282.
• Billboard lists Natalie Cole's song as This Will Be. Source needed to show the full name as This Will Be (An Everlasting Love).
• Billboard also gives the full name of The Spinners song as They Just Can't Stop It the (Games People Play). I think the full name should be used here to match the source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrLinkinPark333: - thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @ChrisTheDude: - Thank you for working on these points quickly! I have only two additional comments based on the edits above:
  • Source needed to show Hot 100 was the pop singles chart in 1974.
  • Part of Stacey & Henderson's quote is missing. It should be "K. C. and the Sunshine Band, and Michael Jackson." Otherwise, you can put an ellipsis and period after K.C. and the Sunshine Band like you did with Fallon's quote. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MrLinkinPark333: - both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominators: Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC) and Hey man im josh 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Hey man im josh and I's extensive work on it, this list is finally complete. It would be great to have a FL to support Angela Merkel, which I plan to bring to FAC in the (hopefully not-too-distant) future after recently bringing it up to GA. Hey man im josh was kind enough to guide me through the process and do at least half the work on this list, thanks again for that! The most recent addition to Merkel's state honours (from Germany) received lots of media attention, and I expect that this list will continue to grow for at least a few years. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Merkel was chancellor of Germany from... - "the" chancellor of Germany
• ...and she was the first female chancellor of Germany. - remove "she", as the subject is already identified at the start of the sentence
• Merkel has also commonly been described as leader of the free world. - "the" leader of the...
• In all the tables, the least column's header should read "Ref(s)" since some cells have multiple
• IMO, some of the things under "Awards" aren't awards, like Time Person of the Year. Perhaps change the header to "Awards and other honours" or something else more broad
• Remove periods from captions that are not full sentences (e.g. "Merkel receiving the Bavarian Order of Merit in 2023." is not a complete sentence, therefore it should not have a period)

Actualcpscm, nothing else from me, excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: I've implemented all of your suggestions, aside from the last one. I chose to make the captions into complete sentences instead of removing the periods. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merkel the world's second most powerful person in 2012 and 2015 and the world's most powerful woman fourteen times. -- might need a comma after 2015. That's all I got.
• Support. Nothing else to quibble. An excellent, well-researched, and informative work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pseud 14: I agree, I've added a comma which I think makes the lead flow better. Thank you very much for reviewing our work! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Well prepared list documenting significant recognition of a world figure.--Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where the chaos of Last Week Tonight began- of course, with a bang! Five episodes in, they transformed the Net Neutrality debate, settling Oliver's place in the late night show industry nicely.

I should clarify the reasoning for differing from most TV season articles. Talk shows are bad at naming their episodes- on Amazon, the episodes are just numbered. For this reason, the "Episode Title" is instead replaced with a "Main Segment" slot. As for the content of the episode summaries, using paragraphs seemed redundant, so I stuck with the descriptors that were there before. A note on sourcing: in the amazing HBO Max to "Max" transition, HBO removed seasons 1-7 of LWT from their site, so there's no actual way to watch old episodes in their entirety (unless you purchase the entire season on Amazon or elsewhere). Thankfully, Amazon retained the episode descriptions, so most summaries use info from Amazon or other news sites related to episodes. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oliver time as host received positive reviews -- Oliver's time (possessive)
• On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes -- on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes
• "rushed and jam-packed with information." -- since you are not quoting the full sentence, period should be placed outside the quote
• Worth linking YouTube both in the lead and in the body
• an effect dubbed the "John Oliver effect" -- use of effect in close proximity to each other, perhaps dropping the first mention of effect should still work I believe.
• That's all from me. Great job on John Oliver's series of work in the FL/FA space. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pseud 14, I've implemented all your comments, thank you for your review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If you have spare time and interest, I'd also appreciate some feedback on my current FLC. Totally understand if you are busy though. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few copy edits here and there, which I hope you don't mind. Let's not screw this up.

• "similar to that of Real Time with Bill Maher" — is this lead worthy? The rest of the article only gives it a passing mention
  • It's the only tidbit about ratings I could find that may be interesting for the lead, but you're right- cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "implemented using comedic bits to split up" — "bits" sounds a bit (hehe, pun unintended) informal. Is there another word that can be used?
  • Replaced with "act". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Critical reception" section is mostly a series of "X writing in Y felt Z"; I feel like this section could benefit from a bit of copy editing with help from WP:RECEPTION (which you've probably heard cited a million times)
  • I've made some changes and now it just has two "__ writing in __" statements- I had a hard time consolidating general opinion because there's very few articles reviewing the season as a whole (and only a few more for the first episode) so I was relatively limited here. Let me know if you think more should be cut. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "just over that of Real Time with Bill Maher" — what is Real Time? Is it a related show? The article doesn't give much context
  • Real Time is HBO's other major late night show- clarified in prose. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a source review, but WP:IBTIMES is cited. If I had a nickel for every time I pointed out an IBTimes cite in a John Oliver article to you, I would have two nickels. That's not a lot, but it's funny that it happened twice.
  • Replaced. Heinz Doofenshmirtz is one of my favorite TV characters, my respect for you has doubled after that reference MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not know the origin of that reference Pamzeis (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRa_cSZ-Hag MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun article :) Ping me in any replies! Pamzeis (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Many thanks for the review, all addressed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work. Supporting :) Pamzeis (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review:

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent publisher formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Ref. 41 is a dead link for me and it does not have an archived version of the page available. Could you replace this reference or add an archive link (in case it's my network)?
• Ref. 44 is listed as an expiring news link by the link checker and does not have an archived version of the page available
• Link checker found no other issues aside from those I mentioned above

Additionally, the image needs alt text. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, think I've gotten everything, thank you very much! Also, what's this link checker you mention? Seems like a useful tool for my own reviews. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: The references are good now. Still would like alt text for the image in addition to the caption (even if they're close). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, Whoops, forgot about that- done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sorry about the delay in coming back to this @MyCatIsAChonk, I didn't really edit over the weekend. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry about, thanks a ton! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a great list, just a couple of grammar fixes.

• "Photo of Oliver wearing a suit and glasses while holding another pair in his hand. Large text above him reads" ----> "Photo of Oliver wearing a suit and glasses while holding another pair. The large text above him reads"
• "The season contained 24 episodes, each featuring a main segment on that week's news story and a number of other smaller segments." -----> "The season contained 24 episodes, each featuring a main segment on that week's news story and several other smaller segments."
• "Additionally, the main segments were posted to the show's YouTube channel after airing." ----> "The main segments were also posted to the show's YouTube channel after airing. "
• "], was credited with influencing the Federal Communications Commission's decision to strongly regulate net neutrality, beginning an phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect"." -----> "], was credited with influencing the Federal Communications Commission's decision to strongly regulate net neutrality, beginning a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect"."
• "On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the season has an approval rating of 94% with an average score of 8.5 out of 10 based on 31 reviews." -----> "On the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, the season has an approval rating of 94%, with an average score of 8.5 out of 10 based on 31 reviews."
• "In comparison, The Daily Show averaged 1.5 million viewers at the same time and The Colbert Report averaged 1.2 million viewers at 11:30 pm." ----> "In comparison, The Daily Show averaged 1.5 million viewers simultaneously, and The Colbert Report averaged 1.2 million viewers at 11:30 pm."
• "In the two days after airing, the Society of Women Engineers received $25,000 in donations, which amounted to about 15% of the society's average annual donations." ----> "Two days after airing, the Society of Women Engineers received $25,000 in donations, which amounted to about 15% of the society's average annual donations."

Otherwise, great work! --TheUzbek (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek, thank you so much, can't believe I didn't catch those small mistakes! Should all be fixed now MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek, why did you remove your support in this edit- is something still incorrect? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Have no issues with this list EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After working on Angeline Quinto's main article and her list of roles and awards and bringing them to featured status, I am nominating her list of songs next. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "She has also collaborated with other artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums" - "featured on songs on their respective albums" probably. "Featured songs" does not seem to exist as a widely recognized term.

You're right. Done as suggested

• "At the 2013 Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs competition, Agatha Morallos wrote the love ballad "One Day" for Quinto." - It might be better to connect this to Quinto earlier on in the sentence. You could try: "Quinto recorded the love ballad "One Day", which Agatha Morallos wrote for her at the 2013 Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs competition."

Revised as suggested

• "she released her third studio album, Higher Love (2014), in which she co-wrote the lead single "Sana2x" - I would switch out "in" for "for". Very nitpicky of me but writing songs "in" albums is an unusual construction

Changed. You know album and song article writing better than I do, so I trust your judgment :)

• "It was later included in Quinto's fourth studio album" - I would go for "on" instead of "in" here again

Done

• No concerns with the table.

Amazing work but it's standard stuff for you, of course :) NØ 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift review MaranoFan and thanks for the kind words :) Comments have been actioned. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Sorry about the little bit of a delay. Everything's up to par.--NØ 06:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all MaranoFan. And much appreciate your comments and review as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Filipino singer Angeline Quinto has recorded material for four studio albums, one reissue," - I don't get this - a reissue is not a new/separate album

That makes perfect sense. I've removed it.

• "featured on songs on their respective albums" => "featured on songs on their albums"

Done

• "which Agatha Morallos wrote for her at the 2013 Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs competition" - Morallos wrote it at the competition? As in, literally at the competition while it was going on? I don't know the details but I wonder if you actually mean "which Agatha Morallos wrote for her to perform at the 2013 Himig Handog P-Pop Love Songs competition"......?

Fair point, it does seem to read like that. I've revised as suggested to avoid ambiguity.

• "Quinto featured in Jamie Rivera's compilation album" => "Quinto featured on Jamie Rivera's compilation album"

Done

• Think that's it - great work as ever Pseud 14!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude, and appreciate the kind words. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I may have missed something. Hope you're having a great start to your week. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: Passed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
• Source review: Passed
  • Link checker shows no issues
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Support -- Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh. Much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Filipino singer Angeline Quinto has - false title

Not sure how her nationality and occupation comes across as false title. I believe MOS:NATIONALITY and MOS:ROLEBIO applies to this, as with every Featured list for singers (i.e. Taylor Swift is an American singer-songwriter, Adele is an English singer). I don't see how it is fake or bogus to identify her as a singer who is of Filipino nationality when her main article and sources also suggests that she is one.

Sorry, my comment was quite vague- I'm not denying that she was Filipino, but that having no article before the title makes it appositive. "The" should be put before; but, this was more of a suggestion, the article on false titles discusses the debated usage of articles, so I'll leave it up to you. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying. I think I misunderstood it too. Having said that, my usage sometimes isn’t consistent. I think I’ve employed its use more within the FA space than here i.e. use of "The" before introducing director xxx, filmmaker xxx, writer xxx, etc. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• began to work with songwriter and producer Jonathan Manalo - another!

Same as above, his article identifies him as a songwriter and producer. The citations (liner notes) on this list also support that he wrote and produced songs for Quinto's albums.

See above. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Quinto recorded the love ballad "One Day" - I'd expect a year or where it was included (single? album?)

The year referred to is the 2013 Himig Handog P-Pop Love, I think it would be redundant to add another instance of it before that. It was recorded for a songwriting competition per footnote "n" and ref28

Fair enough then. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, nothing else from me, fantastic work as usual! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review MyCatIsAChonk. Have provide my responses to your comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to review and for the explanation. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Ladidadida123 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the eight article in this series that I am nominating for FL status. As always the list follows the same pattern as previous lists. This might be the last list of this series that I will be working on so any suggestions for improvement are welcome. -- EN-Jungwon 14:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "On February 25, KBS changed" - state the year for total clarity
• "Boy group NCT Dream also had three number one singles" => "Boy group NCT Dream also had three number-one singles" (when used as an adjective rather than a noun, "number one" has a hyphen)
• "The latter groups win" => "The latter group's win"
• "STAYC and Ateez gained their first number one on the chart" => "STAYC and Ateez gained their first number ones on the chart"
• "Both singles spent two weeks each on the chart." => "Both singles spent two weeks atop the chart"
• "The last first time winner on the chart" => "The last first-time winner on the chart"
• Think that's it - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Support: As much as I've tried to find literally anything to critique, I've been unable to do so. Style is consistent with past articles in the series, accessibility compliant from what I can tell, and appears to meet all of the Featured list criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk

No spotcheck needed, I'll focus on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate
• Cite error on ref 31

EN-Jungwon, I think that's it really. I have to AGF on the authors and dates since I cannot read Korean, but I trust it's all good since it seems like most general articles or the individual weeks are authorless. No questions on the reliability of the sources. Nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk fixed. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the photos used have appropriate free licenses and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest in this series for your consideration. In this particular year, behold! The coming of disco :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

• Isn't the article in The Three Degrees capitalized?
  • No, per MOS:THEBAND -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 6 is an AllMusic biography, which is questionable (see WP:ALLMUSIC); got a better source?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got, very nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the table header, add {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• tie with Roberta Flack for 1974's highest number of weeks atop the chart. -- if I'm not mistaken this is the time spent in atop the charts, perhaps it should be longest?
  • Think it's correct as it is -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• That's all from me. Another solid work. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Image review – Passed. All photos have appropriate free licensing and alt text.
• Source review – Passed. Sources are solid and formatting is good.
• Accessibility review – Passed. Columns and rows have appropriately defined scopes and meet MOS:DTAB.

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nominator(s): PresN 04:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We continue our journey of animal lists through the primates with this list (#31 in our series of animal FLCs). This list is the second of the six-ish subgroupings of the order Primates; for the last one (lorisoids), I did the superfamily instead of each small family or the entire order/suborder like I normally would, and one of the reasons was this list: a superfamily containing one family, Cercopithecidae, itself containing 159 species. Pushing the limits of how many species I really want to put in a list, but no good way to divide it unless I break it down to subfamilies (which isn't really how readers think of these groups). This group was historically known as "Old World monkeys", because... it's the big family of monkeys that aren't in North/South America. It was a pain to source (for some reason, researchers working in southeast Asia love to document species without ever recording exactly how big they are or what exactly they eat), but it's a big chunk of the order now done. Anyways, as always, the list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SilverTiger

• Yes, me again. Anyway, a side question to start with: why is this list of cercopithecids and not list of cercopithecoids to better match list of lorisoids? I understand that it only covers one family, but since the pattern of the primate lists seems to be at the superfamily level, not the family level, it would make more sense to this one to be phrased as a superfamily list too.

• I went with cercopithecids mostly out of habit from non-Primates, I guess. Right now, it seems like the other divisions are going to be: Lorisoidea (superfamily, 2 families), Lemuroidea (superfamily, 5 families), Hominoidea (superfamily, 2 families), Ceboidea (superfamily, 5 families), and Tarsiiformes or Tarsiidae (infraorder or family). So, the question is are this list and the tarsier list named after the only family in each list to match each other, or are they named after the largest grouping that contains only them (superfamily / infraorder) to match the other 4 Primate lists? I see arguments either way; what do you think? (It's an easy change either way).

• I favor consistency and so assumed it would be lorisoids, lemuroids, hominoids, ceboids, cercopicethoids, and then tarsiiforms. So I, personally, would choose "List of cercopithecoids" for this one- but as the one writing the lists it is ultimately up to you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilverTiger12: Alright, moved it all over to "oids". --PresN 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find no fault in the lede, nor in the Conventions or Classifications sections.
• Quite a few are missing range maps and/or pictures, I assume because none were available?

• Yes

• Black Sumatran langur is missing an entry for diet; the IUCN assessment has this information.

• Thanks, gap filled.

Otherwise, every looks good. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: responded inline, with one question for you. --PresN 18:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the few issues addressed, I am happy to Support. Good luck. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It's getting increasingly hard to pick you up on anything with these lists, but in the interest of at least saying something, I would suggest linking rhizomes, as a comparatively obscure word.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! --PresN 19:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Unrelated, but add Template:Use American English or otherwise appropriate

• I find these generally pointless, but sure.

• Ref 3 is missing year

• Unneeded, the year is to disambiguate which book you mean, but there's only one Wilson/Reeder book cited (and the link takes you there)

• All the Nowak sfns are missing years, and these are particularly important to distinguish Walker's Mammals of the World from Walker's Primates of the World. I suggest appending the years with letters to differentiate the years; see Template:Sfn/doc#More than one work in a year

• Whoops, good point, added

• The Petter and Desbordes refs are missing years too

• Unneeded, the year is to disambiguate which book you mean, but there's only one Petter/Desbordes book cited (and the link takes you there)

PresN, got nothing else, excellent job on consistency! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: replied inline, thanks! --PresN 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - nice job! BTW, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FLC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Man this list makes me really want to do a monkey GA, just because of how damn colorful the monkeys are (which, as an aside, I did not know monkeys could be).
• "Sumatra island in Indonesia" sounds weird, maybe just "Sumatra, Indonesia" or "Island of Sumatra in Indonesia". Also applies to the use of this construction for other Indonesian islands.

• Done

Image review

• The photo for sooty mangabey is of a different species. We also have two range maps, although I'm not sure whether they're the most accurate.

• Hmm, looks like the article never got updated for the split, removing image. According to the IUCN, both maps appear to be pre-split.

• We have photos for Tana River mangabey.

• Swapped

• We have photos for Campbell's mona monkey.

• Swapped

• We have photos and a map for Dent's mona monkey.

• Swapped

• The collage look weird for lesula, we have other photos. Also maybe an extractable range map.

• Swapped; added cropped map

• Map for Lowe's mona monkey.

• Added

• Lots of very good photos for white-throated guenon.

• Swapped

• Dryas monkey is one of the cases where the illustration might be better than the photo.

• Swapped

• Tantalus monkey photo should be replaced, it is atrociously bad and we have others.

• Swapped

• Not part of the review, but that vervet monkey photo is... interesting.
• A couple photos that are maybe better for Arunachal macaque, might wanna check.

• Swapped

• Better photos available for Assam macaque.

• Swapped

• Couple of better photos for Formosan rock macaque.

• Swapped

• Photo for moor macaque is very poor quality, we have plenty of better ones.

• Swapped

• Muta-Baton macaque has a range map available.

• Added

• Stump-tailed macaque has photos available. (not the one in its article, one of these would be better)

• Added

• The side-on photo for drill doesn't show the distinctive face well, these two are other options.

• Swapped

• Better photo for Gabon talapoin.

• Swapped

• Kinda baboon has a somewhat questionable range map available.

• Added

• Again not part of the review, but tf is that gelada photo? Weirdest looking monkey I've ever seen.

• Found a better one that doesn't have two overlapping, but they're still weird looking. Females and juveniles are a bit less so, in terms of proportions, but they all have the odd red bit.

• Ursine colobus has a photo available, not great but better than the line drawing.

• Swapped

• The pennant's colobus image is also used at the Niger Delta red colobus article?

• Slightly different- they took the same drawing and colored one with a white arm/chest and the other not.

• We have a photo of Black-crested Sumatran langur.

• Swapped

• We seem to have photos of Javan surili.

• Added

• For grey shanked douc, this has a clearer view and better quality.

• Swapped

• Hatinh langur has photos on Commons.

• Added

• Laotian langur has a photo available.

• Added

• Tenasserim luting has a stamp illustration available, although I don't get why the Indian government was illustrating a Burmese monkey, so might wanna make sure it's the right species.

• Seeing evidence elsewhere that it's actually Phayre's leaf monkey, which is in Northeast India, which makes more sense for a stamp series called "Rare Fauna of the North East"

• We have pretty good photos of live white-headed langurs available, why use one of the specimen?

• Ambiguity- White-headed langur (T. leucocephalus) was split off from T. francoisi, but that's the only picture in the parent category or subcategories that specifies that it's leucocephalus rather than francoisi. It's possible that some of the zoo pictures are, but I can't tell by looking at them.

• The licensing is fine for all the photos, almost all of which are self-published works. AryKun (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PresN, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: All done! Thank you so much for going above and beyond on this review- I usually just grab whatever image is in the species' infobox, but some of the ones you found really are much better. --PresN 21:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, that’s a pass image review and support on prose from me. Someone really should go and update the species articles with the images from this list, but that’s not relevant to this.AryKun (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 06:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the previous nomination's archival last month, I will nominate this list again. Chompy Ace 06:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MyCatIsAChonk

Happy to see a film scorer as the image on an awards list, it's rare you see them as the front face of major films! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The table is currently squished by the infobox (using Vector 2022); this could be fixed by expanding the lead by a few sentence to push it all downwards, but of course this is optional- just an idea.
• The last column's header should say Ref(s), since some cells have multiple refs.
• The sorting in the recipients column is off- if you sort A to Z downwards, Russell Earl comes between two Dan Lemmons, but Lemmon starts with L... what's odd is Lemmon reappears further down, in the correct alphabetical place
• I suggest adding a caption to the table.
• All citations should use the same casing (per MOS:CONFORMTITLE)

That's all I got, very nice work on this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, done except for the first, fourth, and fifth comments. The first does not have any option, the fourth is handled by a screen-reader only template, and the fifth is I addressed already to apply all multimedia titles. Chompy Ace 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chompy Ace Ref 1 uses sentence case. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, done. Chompy Ace 02:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - nothing from me. Another excellent list from Chompy Ace -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I agree with Chris, this is another well sorted listicle, just some comments and I'll support! GeraldWL 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is a reboot of the Batman film franchise. The film was directed" --> "it is a reboot of the Batman film franchise directed" in my opinion this makes reading the prose flow more naturally
• There are three continuous refs, why not place them at the sentence which it supports? Or is the paragraph everything everywhere all at once?
• Why not add Metacritic?
• In "Best BTS/EPK for a Feature Film (Under 2 minutes)", why not link or add a footnote for readers who don't get the terms?
• Image review pass, good caption and alt, and also succinct rationale.

Gerald Waldo Luis, done except for the third comment which is consistent among other film accolades lists (List of accolades received by Top Gun: Maverick is an example). Chompy Ace 09:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah alright, that's understandable. Well, since I have no more issues, I'mma support this piece. Good work! GeraldWL 09:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

• Infobox says 9 wins. I counted 6 wins mentioned in the infobox and the main table. There are 4 runner-up mentions in the main table which is not mentioned in the infobox so the total number of wins should be 10. So in the infobox change:

• {{Custom award|[[Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards]]|0|1}} → {{Custom award|[[Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards]]|1|1}}
• {{Custom award|[[Georgia Film Critics Association Awards]]|1|2}} → {{Custom award|[[Georgia Film Critics Association Awards]]|2|2}}
• {{Custom award|[[St. Louis Film Critics Association Awards]]|0|2}} → {{Custom award|[[St. Louis Film Critics Association Awards]]|2|2}}
• |wins= 9 → |wins= 10

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 14:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon, done. Chompy Ace 09:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 11:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

• Source review: Passed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent publisher formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Link checker shows no issues (though I did have to copy the refs to my sandbox to run the checker for some reason, as it stopped short of analyzing all the references)
• Image review: Passed
  • Image is relevant
  • Image is appropriately licensed
  • Images has alt text

Support. Good stuff @Chompy Ace. -- Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 07:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I reworked the table per other list of accolades articles and added more references in the parent article. Chompy Ace 07:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Skyfall debuted in Royal Albert Hall" => "Skyfall debuted at the Royal Albert Hall"
• "The film won Best Original Song at the 70th Golden Globe Awards." - the film did not win this award. A song from the film won this award.
• Re: the ASCAP Awards, the source says "Those honored in the Top Box Office Films category were James Newton Howard (The Bourne Legacy, The Hunger Games and Snow White and the Huntsman), Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight Rises and Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted), Howard Shore (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey), Marc Shaiman (Parental Guidance) and Carter Burwell (The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2). In addition, awards were presented to [some other people and] Paul Epworth (Skyfall)" - as worded this indicates that only the five people named in the first sentence won in the Top Box Office Films category and that Epworth won something else ("in addition"). What award did he actually win....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, re that last point, this has an almost identical block of text but says that the winners included the first five names, rather than were the first five. So I guess Epworth did win in that category...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]