Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2024

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back with bats list #3 and mammal list #44: Miniopteridae. These are the 31 species of bent-winged bats, once again a pack of very small bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) but this time with oversized wings. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... there's some disagreement on if some of the Southeast Asia species should be split up into multiple, but this is where it stands today. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - always very straightforward to review your animal lists, @PresN: :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Licenses are fine, images are appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You know the drill.
• Executive summary: I didn't find any problems.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. See above for the image review.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Support. If it were anybody else who kept so flawlessly pulling off their references, I would assume I was missing something. Not that I'd ever try these lists, they're too much for me, but I have found it neat to be doing the source reviews on these bat lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last in the list of all-time team selections for the Packers. As always, happy to address any concerns or issues promptly. Thanks for reviewing! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the 16 players named to the team, two runners-up were named for each of the 15 positions, for a total of 46 players - Unsure about whether that two complies with MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• 19 players were named to the "two-way team", with six - Sure that one doesn't.
• There are several instances of this throughout the text. Please have a look at them.
• 25 years later - Sentence shouldn't begin with a number.
• 19 players - Ditto.
• 100 players - Ditto.
• Refs should be Refs..
• Both two-way and players who played significant time at both offensive and defensive positions link to the same article. I guess the first link would do.
• Could the years of the 75th and 100th anniversaries be stated? Something along the lines of Twenty-five years later, in 1994, the NFL 75th Anniversary All-Time Team was selected...
• There are two consecutive were just inducted. Can one be changed to were only inducted or something similar?

That's what I saw, Gonzo fan2007. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alavense, thank you for the (quick!) review. I have addressed all of team except "starting a sentence with a number" comments. Is there an MOS you can reference on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits, Gonzo fan2007. And sure, it can also be found at MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure". Maybe I wasn't clear enough: I don't mean that starting the sentence with a number is wrong, but that it should be spelt out rather than a figure. Alavense (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alavense, all fixed. Thanks again! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a couple more, but those were just minor fixes. Nice work on the list and thanks for the prompt responses. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Don Hutson was one of only two Packers' players" - no need for possessive apostrophe (you wouldn't say "one of only two Green Bay's players")
• Same where it appears in the prose
• "Twelve of the Packers selections" - conversely you do need a possessive apostrophe here
• "Three players (Len Ford, Ted Hendricks and Emlen Tunnell) were just inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" - I think "Three players (Len Ford, Ted Hendricks and Emlen Tunnell) were inducted into just the Pro Football Hall of Fame" would read better
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude, I have addressed all your comments. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• "Years with Packers" column – Would replacing "years" with "seasons" be more appropriate? I'm thinking of the fact that sometimes a season bleeds over into the next year.
  • I think almost every list I have done has "years" instead of "seasons"
    • Well, I won't let this be the sole hangup and reason not to support, but I do think it's something to consider implementing in your lists. I've tried to make that distinction typically for that reason, especially when talking about the draft (ugh, multiple drafts in the same year for different seasons so many times). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey man im josh, I am sorry, I started drafting this response and then forgot to complete my thoughts. I will take a look at all of them and get back to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed this here and on my other lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 4 – Change "San Bernardino Sun" to "The San Bernardino Sun"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Position column could probably use a note that says something along the lines of "the most recent designation in an anniversary team"
  • So position is weird, because they changed the names of it throughout the years. Hutson was a "Split end" in the 50th team and a "wide receiver" in the 75th and 100th teams. I am open to ideas? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I know the position stuff is super weird sometimes and Don Hutson is exactly who I had in mind when I mentioned it. This makes me think of the "MT" position, which turned out to be middle tackle on a line of what I believe was several tackles instead of just a (defensive) "end". Also halfback vs running back. Anyways though, I also look at a guy like Boyd Dowler, he was listed as a flanker for most of his career. Maybe usage of notes here could be helpful? It's tough. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what to say about two-way players, specifically Cal Hubbard, who are only listed as one position, but then you have Clarke Hinkle who's listed as a two-way player as their position. Something should probably be done to clear this up a bit for the few players who are affected.
  • So back in the day, "tackle" and "end" were both offensive and defensive positions. Hubbard though played fullback and linebacker. That's why I did it that way. I never want to list out every single position these guys played, as many had kicking duties too. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm familiar with how complicated and silly it gets. Perhaps usage of notes could make this better, or the position column could become a position(s) column in which you list positions that a player was selected for a team as, as opposed to their definitive position at the time? I'm brainstorming here, but I think it could be improved upon in some way. I look at this list and I go "woah, what other position did Hutson play again?" Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. I will say I was pretty pissed off at ref #6 though. Joe Schmidt was snubbed! Hey man im josh (talk)

Responses above Hey man im josh. Thank you for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses above Gonzo_fan2007. I know my answers are in no way definitive, since I'm not really sure what I'm even asking, I just know we can talk it out and maybe improve it. Also noting that source review now passed since the only issue I had with references has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, what would you think of just adding a note that says "The naming of positions has changed throughout the history of the NFL. The positions provided are the modern equivalent as identified by Pro-Football-Reference.com." « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: I think that's better than what we have now, but I feel mixed about Boyd Dowler, who was listed as a flanker and end. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh how about The naming of positions has changed throughout the history of the NFL. The positions provided are the player's position their last season in the NFL as identified by Pro-Football-Reference.com. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Sorry for the delay in replying. I really don't think there's a perfect way after giving it thought, but so long as we call out why there would be an inconsistency with what some people might expect (expecting a flanker to be listed as a WR), I think we've done our due diligence. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit Hey man im josh. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All photos used in the article have appropriate free licensing, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 14th nomination in this series. In this particular year Jim Croce scored two number ones despite the fact that he had sadly died the previous year. Comments as ever gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first caption, maybe say something like "for two weeks"?
• As with previous lists, you could state when the first issue of the year was published.
• I'm unsure about the Three Degrees and the Love Unlimited Orchestra. Is "the" part of the name? If it is, shouldn't it be capitalized? If it is not, shouldn't it be removed from the table? Ignore my comment if I got it completely wrong.
• Consider adding {{abbr}} for Ref., as in previous lists.

That's what I saw, ChrisTheDude. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: - points 1, 2, and 4. Re: point 3, see MOS:THEBAND, which says that with music acts whose names start with "The", that word should not have a capital T in prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits. And I learnt something new today! Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

I'm stumped, I got nothing to suggest! Great job Chris, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Your image of Jim Croce looks like it was derived from some version of File:Jim Croce publicity portrait ABC Records (cropped).jpg. I say that because the image you're using doesn't have any source information (and the tag it uses probably needs a source to back up what the tag is saying), and the links for previous versions of the image are all dead (usually! but sometimes not) ... but the original image does have source information, so maybe it would be better to use that one.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: - many thanks for your review. I changed the Jim Croce image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It's such a pleasure to read your lists, especially this latest series. And thanks for all the work you've been doing at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dank: - thank you for those kind words. I think I saw that you also have an open nom so I will look at that in due course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Couldn't find any issues, but see if you want to use the cropped version of Croce's image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made an excellent template based on our last nomination and we have one more nomination that already has several supports. We have incorporated those changes into this nomination. Should go smoothly but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing, great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "in the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, Spain that is divided" ==> "in the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, Spain, that is divided" (add comma after Spain)

I'd already fixed that yesterday. Alavense (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

• "According to the 2023 Spanish census" => I'd recommend trying to link "2023 Spanish census" with some sort of related article about it if there is (most likely using an ILL to the Spanish Wikipedia?). I tried searching but couldn't find any article exactly about it but, if it helps, I think this article on the Spanish Wikipedia could help.

There is no article for the 2023 Spanish census. Until 2021, they were only published every ten years and it's only in the last few years that we get an anual census. Besides, that article in the Spanish Wikipedia about the demographics is severely outdated. Alavense (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well don't worry about it then, looks good now.

• "According to the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population with 731,112 inhabitants but is the 7th largest by land area spanning 15,369 square kilometres (5,934 sq mi)." ==> I think there should be commas after "by population", "inhabitants", & "by land area"

Reply: I saw you reworded the lead so ignore this suggestion. Instead though, based on the current wording, I recommend having it as: "As of the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population with 731,112 inhabitants and the 7th largest by land area, spanning 15,369 square kilometres (5,934 sq mi)"

I added the comma and removed the redundant "is". Do you mind having "but" instead of "and", though? I think it's a good word to point out the gap between 23rd and 7th. It's a very big province, but it isn't very populated, though. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that works fine too. Thanks for the other fixes! :) Dan the Animator 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local administration. Amongst other tasks, they are in charge of urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting." ==> recommend rewording for tone/concision (better sentence?: "Municipalities have a large degree of autonomy in their local administration, with some responsibilities including urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting."

Reply: I still think combining the sentences would be good but let me know your thoughts about the above suggestion

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks! Just one minor rewording suggestion: "being in charge of tasks such as urban planning, water supply" (its generally better to avoid using the word "like" when possible since its often makes the tone less formal)

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought I'd suggest this but I don't think its too necessary to list out the different tasks municipalities help with (e.g., just say "Municipalities are given a large degree of autonomy in their local administration."). I think its kind of assumed/implied already in the phrase "large degree of autonomy in their local administration" (for comparison, I don't go into details about what Ukrainian raions are responsible/capable for in my Ukraine Oblast lists, instead mostly relying on the link to districts, which has much of the info about local powers). That said, I think it also might make sense to turn it into an efn note (so change it to: Municipalities are given a large degree of autonomy in handling their local administration.{{efn|Amongst some of the responsibilities of the governments of municipalities are urban planning, water supply, lighting, road network, local police and fire fighting.}})

I do think it's important to point out what those tasks are, so I wouldn't relegate that information to a note. This list is about two things (1) municipalities 2) in the province of Toledo) and I think it's essential to cover both in the text: 1) explain what municipalities are for, what they do and how they are legally regulated and 2) give some information about municipalities in the province of Toledo, and that's why we also include information about the most and least populous and the largest and smallest municipalities. Besides, there's only a single sentence about the tasks, no more than twenty words. Alavense (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense but that sentence just sounded overly detailed when read in my opinion and its good to avoid repeating too much information from other articles (in this case, the full list of all the powers/responsibilities of the municipalities would probably be detailed in Municipalities of Spain I think). I have very little knowledge of the Spanish administrative system so I guess my question is whether the specific powers/responsibilities listed are unique to/notable for Toledo's municipalities or are just some examples of what municipalities in Spain generally handle? If the specific responsibilities listed are unique, than it makes sense to have it here but if these are common responsibilities amongst all municipalities in Spain, I feel like it would be better just to leave it in the Municipalities of Spain article and have a link to there. Interested to hear your thoughts about it though.

I do see your point. Having combined the sentences already, though, it's a mere half a sentence and I think it does no harm and is actually valuable to have it there. Let me know what you think, please. Alavense (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way it reads now is fine. Only the small word change mentioned above (switching out "like" with "such as" or something similar) is needed and I think it should be good to go. :) Dan the Animator 05:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentences "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy [...] local police and fire fighting." should go after the sentence "Municipalities are the basic local political division in Spain, and can only belong to one province."

Re Still needs a reply.

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The organisation of the municipalities is outlined in a local government law"

• Organization of which municipalities? (recommend rewording to "The organisation of Toledo's 204 municipalities is")

The organization of all the Spanish municipalities is outlined in that law and that royal decree. Alavense (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense, thanks! Recommend rewording to this for clarity then: "The organisation of municipalities in Spain is outlined"

Another very nice idea. Implemented. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Elaborate on what local government law means. Is this a law created/enacted by the municipalities individually, by the Toledo provincial government, by the Castilla–La Mancha autonomous community, by someone/something else?

It's a law whose aim is to regulate local government. I linked that article for clarity. Alavense (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the link helps! :)

• "(Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local)" ==> add in the lang template after it so that it looks like this: "(Spanish: Ley 7/1985, de 2 de abril, Reguladora de las Bases del Régimen Local; transl. Law 7/1985, of 2 April, Regulating the Bases of the Local Administration)"

Done. Alavense (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "passed on 2 April 1985, completed by an 18 April 1986 royal decree" ==> better?: "passed on 2 April 1985, and enacted by an 18 April 1986 royal decree"

I don't think enacted would mean the same as completed. They are different texts, one is a law and the other one is a royal decree - the royal decree doesn't enact the law. Alavense (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Maybe would finalise be better? In either case, recommend rewording it to have the and ("passed on 2 April 1985 and finalised by an 18 April 1986 royal decree")

I had a go at it. Let me know if you are happy with that. Thanks once again. Alavense (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look, it's getting close. The only thing is to take out the word "then" (e.g. "The organisation of municipalities in Spain is outlined in a local government law passed on 2 April 1985 and then finalised by an 18 April 1986 royal decree." reads better without it). Dan the Animator 05:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "plenary assembly (pleno) of councillors (concejales)." ==> try to link councillors if possible

Done. Alavense (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• maybe add inter language links (ILLs) to ayuntamiento, alcalde, tenientes de alcalde, pleno, and/or concejales, if possible?

I added internal links where possible. Alavense (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

• "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, more or less often depending on the population of the municipality:" ==> "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, typically often depending on the population of the municipality:"

I don't understand what typically often would mean in that context. The purpose of the sentence is to point out that they meet more often or less frequently according to the population. Alavense (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake, I misread it. Usually more or less is used as a synonym for "in general"/"basically" and similar words/phrases. I'd recommend rewording to something like "meet periodically at the seat of the ayuntamiento, with meetings occurring more or less frequently depending on the population of the municipality"

I really like that. Done. Thank you. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent with the use of councillors vs. concejales (e.g. "by population for the purpose of determining the number of concejales:" probably should be changed to say councillors, etc.)

Done. Alavense (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), named by the mayor from amongst the councillors—it is required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants. The junta de gobierno local, whose role is to assist the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly, may not include more than one third of the councillors" ==> "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), named by the mayor from amongst the councillors and which cannot include more than one third of the councillors. These boards are required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants and generally are responsible for assisting the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly."

Re Still needs a reply

I worded those sentences that way because of the references. If it's a pressing matter, though, I can give a go at rewording it. Alavense (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe as a small easy improvement to make it flow better and which should align with the references, reword the sentences as "Many ayuntamientos also have a local governing board (Spanish: junta de gobierno local), which is named by the mayor from amongst the councillors and is required for municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants. The board, whose role is to assist the mayor between meetings of the plenary assembly, may not include more than one third of the councillors"

It's alright as-is too although I would definitely recommend switching out "junta de gobierno local" with "board" for consistency (similar to the councillors/concejales change earlier). Dan the Animator 06:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The largest municipality by population in the province of Toledo as of the 2023 Spanish census is Toledo, its capital, with 85,818 residents, while the smallest is Illán de Vacas with 3 residents. The largest municipality by area is Los Yébenes, which spans 676.16 km², while El Puente del Arzobispo is the smallest at 0.98 km²." ==> "As of the 2023 Spanish census, the largest municipality by population in the province is the provincial capital Toledo, with 85,818 residents, while the smallest is Illán de Vacas, with 3 residents. The largest municipality by area is Los Yébenes, which spans 676.16 km², while El Puente del Arzobispo is the smallest at 0.98 km²."

I think it reads better the way it is now. the province is the provincial reads repetitive in my opinion. Alavense (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Two edits that should be made though: "in the province of Toledo" should just be "in the province" since its already clear enough which province this is about, and there should be a comma after Illán de Vacas.

Done. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• add in the convert temps for all units (example: {{convert|676.16|km2|sqmi|abbr=on}})

Is it necessary for all units? I think it would make the table a bit crammed. Square kilometres are the one and only measure unit used in Spain (and that's the country this list is about), so, from my point of view, including that one convert template at the beginning of the introduction, for the most general piece of information (the one relating to the province as a whole), is more than enough. Alavense (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Feel free to leave them off if you want. I thought I'd suggest in case it helps.

That's everything I have for now. I'd strongly recommend retroactively and proactively applying whatever changes/edits you make on this list to the previous and future Spanish municipalities FLNs. Any case, great work with this list! :) Dan the Animator 14:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We always include the suggestions to other lists. :) Alavense (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Alavense!! :)

Actually, a few more suggestions...

• For the Land area (km²) column, consider making it so that it includes the square miles conversion for each (example: List of spits of Ukraine). Not that its required but I think it helps sometimes, although it's also completely fine as-is too.

Replied to above. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Change" column should be renamed "Population change" or, if to keep it short, use the abbr template to make it "Pop. change"

Done. Alavense (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the abbr template is used, consider switching the Population density column title with "Pop. density (2023)"

After all, I decided it was better to have the full words, in line with the other columns. Alavense (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds and looks good to me ;)

• For the photo captions, for consistency & concision:

• "Toledo is the province's capital and largest municipality by population." ==> "Toledo, the capital and largest municipality by population in Toledo Province"
• "Talavera de la Reina, the second most populous municipality in the province of Toledo" ==> "Talavera de la Reina, the second most populous municipality in the province"
• "Illescas is the province of Toledo's third largest municipality by population." ==> "Illescas, the province's third largest municipality by population"
• "Seseña, the province of Toledo's fourth most populous municipality" ==> "Seseña, the fourth most populous municipality in the province"

Is consistency really needed here? I don't think having a bit of variety amongst the captions does any harm. Alavense (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. Feel free to ignore this suggestion :)

• For the gallery title, "Largest municipalities in the province of Toledo by population", I'd recommend just saying "Largest municipalities in the province by population"; this list is about Toledo province so there's no need to specify that much imo.

I removed the "Toledo" from the previous sentence as suggested above, but I'm in two minds about this one. Maybe, being the title of a gallery, it should be understandable on its own? I remember having read somewhere that image captions have to be understood without the help of the article title or anything else, so I thought something similar would apply here. What do you think, Dantheanimator? Alavense (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look and thinking it over more, probably best to leave it as-is. A lot of other FLs (including one I got promoted semi-recently) also include the province/region name so probably better to keep it. Dan the Animator 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help! Dan the Animator 14:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Dantheanimator. I replied to a few suggestions, but I'd also like to have Mattximus' opinion on the others. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and many thanks for another great list! :) Dan the Animator 03:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Mattximus to take a look over the new replies. Thanks y'all again for the amazing list and improving the coverage on Spain! Muchas gracias! :) Dan the Animator 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias a ti. :) I've replied to all the suggestions now, Dantheanimator. Some of them require further comments from you. Thank you very much for the useful suggestions and your patience. Alavense (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias Alavense! Yo publicado nuevos mensajes en la reseña. Espero que te ayuden. (also, sorry if the Spanish is a bit off, it's been a while since I've practiced) ;) Dan the Animator 06:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think every comment has already been addressed now, Dantheanimator. Let me know if anything else is required. The Spanish is almost flawless. :) Thanks again, Alavense (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alavense! :) I went through and made one really minor copyedit but it looks perfect now! Support promoting this to FL status! Congrats on another successful FLN! ;) Dan the Animator 19:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would recommend making use of one {{as of}} in the lead - that will automatically mark the statements as needing updating. For example, paragraph 1 sentence 2:

  {{as of|pre=According to the|2023}} Spanish census, the province is the [[Ranked lists of Spanish provinces#Population and geography|23rd largest by population]] [...]

  will render as:

  According to the 2023 Spanish census, the province is the 23rd largest by population

  but will be added to Category:Articles_containing_potentially_dated_statements_from_2023

Done. Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Your alt text in the gallery should describe the images. For example: File:Toledo (37737041515).jpg currently has the alt text "City view of Toledo" but I would recommend adding more detail: "A city view of Toledo. In the foreground is a blue-green river with plants along the bank, and in the background are buildings which are built up a hillside". For more information, see MOS:ALT.

Does it need to be that specific, though? In MOS:ALT, I read Alternative text should be short, such as "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush". Alavense (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it always needs to be specific, because alt text is only read by a screen reader when the image isn't shown. In my example above, you see that the important information ("A city view of Toledo") are the first few words. A better example would be the first row of the "Examples" section of MOS:ALT, where the Denmark Flag is described. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Can you please help me with that, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, and yes I do recall the alt captions needing to specifically describe the image. All changes made. Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:FOOTER, rather than using the commons category box in the Works Cited section, you should use {{commons category-inline}} under an External Links section.

Done. Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I got. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Matthewrb. Two done, I've replied to the suggestion about the alt text. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the ninth generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. I've gone through the list and included what information I could about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise and the ninth generation's setting included in the article's lead. I believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: The reference formatting will need some work for consistency. I'm noting that, while there are Wikilinks in refs, probably at least half of the references are missing them. I added some with a quick find and replace, but I thought I'd mention it early on so you can address is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I'll get around to patching those up once I've got a bit of free time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh I've hyperlinked all sites that have associated Wikipedia articles. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about reviewing this since I possiboy need more reviewers at my FAC.

• I'm not sure if you already addressed some my comments from the peer review, but the I noticed there are publications/magazines still aren't linked yet

• Link Polygon and Nintendo Life at reception.

• Be consistent with whether or not the citations use title case for the titles. Make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

• Put url/website at Ref 3, a google book works.

• What makes DenFaminicoGamer and Gayming Magazine reliable?

• Ref 30 and ref 38 are missing date of publication.

• I don't feel Radio Times is a reliable source for video games articles.

• ref 124 magazine was full capitalized?

• replace the "gamesradar" into GamesRadar+ at ref 131

• ref 166 magazine should be only RPG. Do not include other things such as "WWW".

• ref 184 is missing author. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza! I've addressed the links since you've made your comment, and I've additionally addressed the bulk of your concerns. As for a few particular points:

-What is "title case"? I've genuinely never heard of this before, and would appreciate clarification on what it is.

-Radio Times is more than reliable. It's a highly well-respected publisher for entertainment related information and has been for decades. It has been used without issue in entertainment-related articles and is of generally high quality. Its usage shouldn't be of concern.

-Ref 166 should be "RPGFan," not RPG, as RPGFan is actual the name of the website. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game titles like for example in ref 134 there is a game title from the publication's title called "Pokémon Scarlet and Violet", it should be italicized for consistency. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll ping you once I've made adjustments to those. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza! I've made the requested adjustments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will abstain from voting for now until other people have already chimed in here I supposed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 I red the article again and I think I don't have issues anymore at this. So, I'll Support this. If you're willing to review my FAC also, feel free to chime in. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't images be added for the species? In other lists, you would expect to maybe find the image when you click on the article, but there's never going to be an article for the majority of these Pokémon, so I think it would be useful.
  • Note: Typed this before Pres sent their comment below, but basically the reasons he described. However, for further clarification, there have been no images published that I can find that depict all of them as a group, and mocking one up would require individual fair use rationales for every image, which would be a gross fair use violation. It simply isn't feasible at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, then. Sorry. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• based on Spain and the Iberian Peninsula - The wording there is weird, given that Spain is part of the peninsula.
  • Clarified wording on the Iberian Peninsula. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Scarlet and Violet also features - "feature", for consistency's sake.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There should be consistency as to whether "and" has to be in italics. You have Pokémon Scarlet and Violet but Pokémon Black and White. There are several instances of these with different colours.
  • Fixed all of them. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• How does the list before the actual list help? I mean, the order is the same, so I don't really see how that helps.
  • I assume you mean the hyperlinked list of species before the main list when you mean "the list before the list"? That's there primarily in case a reader is looking for any particular Pokémon, which will allow them to hyperlink straight to a specific one. While it's use cases are admittedly niche, it's still a helpful navigational tool and doesn't take up so much space to the point it proves detrimental to the list overall, so I see no need to cut it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand why all the descriptions are merged in the last column, given that they are for each individual Pokémon. You have a row for Sprigatito, another one for Floragato and another one for Meowscarada. Why merge then in the last column? I think this is only justified when the information is scarce.
  • Descriptions are merged primarily because they are more effectively covered in this way for the bulk of the species. It makes more sense to cover multiple associated subjects as part of one uniform group, or in this case, a cell, so readers will know these subjects are associated more easily, among several other reasons. I could admittedly split some off, but the subjects with enough coverage to split into another cell are primarily those who already have articles where that information is better summarized. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with that, but then again, if that's the case, reading is a futuristic Paradox Pokémon resembling six times in a row feels a bit weird. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I can probably reword those, but I'm not sure what would work best to convey the same information while not reading even more strangely. What would you suggest here? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • I just find it weird to merge things when then you are going to repeat information, that's all. One would think that the purpose of merging them and not having one row for each of them would be not to duplicate the information. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You have "cat" linked twice in the same row. It's the same with "crocodile" in the next section and so on and so forth, so please review these.
  • Fixed the bulk of the dupe links. Let me know if I missed any. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• gatito is a colloquial word for "little cat", not necessary a kitten.
  • Thank you for the Sprigatito shout-out since it turns out that one was actually using an incorrect source that I had missed. I've removed the information, primarily since I'm unable to find a citation describing the naming information at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Fighting type should be hyphened for consistency's sake.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are lots of instances of "who" being used to refer to a Pokémon. Is that okay? Or should it be "which"?
  • Changed to which. That makes more sense consistently given we're discussing species here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• consisting of a pair of Pokemon - It should be "Pokémon".
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Tadbulb is a Pokémon - What else could it be? There are also a few is a species of Pokémon, which are equally obvious.
  • Some specific entries have such a small amount of coverage that their exact identities and origins are not discussed in any major sources. A few had descriptions in sources such as Screen Rant and Game Rant, but I elected not to include them due to quality concerns normally brought up during Featured Content assessments. As a result, certain entries being described as "X is a Pokémon" are things I cannot really avoid due to these ones in particular just having less discussion than other entries on the list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the fictional, in-universe streamer, Iono should be the fictional, in-universe streamer Iono
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Gym Leader - There's only one mention to it, with no explanation or link whatsoever.
  • I removed the Gym Leader mention. Admittedly could probably clarify that properly if needed but it really isn't too important for understanding here, since the focus is more on the promo than Iono's character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ball of a mud or "ball of mud"?
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Corviknight- a large, metallic bird-like Pokémon- - Those should be {{mdash}}es.
  • Fixed mdashes in all places that needed them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiglett has been commented on for its phallic appearance by both fans and critics.[104][105][106][107][108] - Please merge all those references.
  • I admittedly have no idea how to do that. What template should be used for something like that? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:BUNDLING. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I have been trying for eons but genuinely cannot figure this out, and the directions in the instruction article are very confusing. I apologize for my technological illiteracy, but could you please clarify how this works? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Pokelego999: I've done a drive-by reference bundle, so this issue is fixed. In the future, you can bundle references by playing them within a {{efn}} footnote that reads like Supported by multiple sources:[1][2][etc], with the <ref> tags placed inside the efn. If you use Visual Editor, you will have to enter the {{efn}} menu thing and then manually insert the references in there as they'd be formatted in the Source Editor. (But you can always generate them in VE and then switch to Source and just encase them in the efn.) DecafPotato (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @DecafPotato Thank you for the help and the detailed response! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pokémon, that evolves from Wiglett - No need for that comma.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Flamigo's design was criticized by fans - Why? And why did it then garner popularity?
  • Clarified information in this section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is Cetitan linked?
  • No idea, good catch. Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• incredibly cold - I think "very cold" is more encyclopedic?
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Kingambit, is - No need for that comma.
  • Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• are Paradox Pokémon- Pokémon who hail from different time periods than normal Pokémon- - {{mdash}}es, please.
  • Fixed per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the table for now, given that there are many things that I've pointed out and that would need work. Going into the "Reception" section now:

• Noting these traits, she felt that it allowed - Maybe "they"?
• Several Pokemon, such as Annihilape, Palafin, Flutter Mane, Iron Bundle, and Houndstone ended up - A comma is missing before "ended up".
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some curly apostrophes.
  • I'm a bit confused about the curly apostrophes, since the only ones used in Reception are in direct quotes from cited sources, and not used in the actual prose. Could you clarify on this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They’re barely even creatures, they’re just - Should those apostrophes be curly? I really don't know, I was just pointing out in case it was a mistake. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      They're direct quotations from the original author, so I'm not sure if that's supposed to be changed or not. I only left them because these are the author's words, and thus I wished to leave them as unedited as possible. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Okay, then. No problem, I guess. Alavense (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the simplicity of the generations' designs - It's only one generation, isn't it?
  • Typo. Fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Several designs have also been noted as being popular with the LGBTQ+ community. Many described Quaquaval as being popular with LGBTQ+ fans - Both sentences could be merged.
  • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the list still needs a bit of doing up, but I won't oppose. Let's see if you can start working on these comments and how the list stands after that. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alavense: Let me know if anything else needs fixing, and if anything else needs to be done. Let me know if anything above needs clarifying as well. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, given that there cannot be copyright-free images of the pokemon, it would be very hard to justify the inclusion of dozens of them in this list, unfortunately. --PresN 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the suggestion of including the images. My bad. I've replied to your replies with some clarifications. I will then carry on reading the table when I get more time. Thanks and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense responded to the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

• the chest form, and a second "Roaming Form" - No need for that comma.
• the beads are said to be filled the envy of those which wanted to have them - Is something missing there?
• and Miraidon the future - and Miraidon from the future
• with the -don suffix in reference to a frequent suffix for dinosaurs - Maybe something simpler like with the -don suffix being a reference to dinosaurs?
• as part of an event, where players could battle - No need for that comma.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense addressed your concerns on the above comments. On the subject of the repetition in the Paradoxes section, the main reason I made them standard is because there's no real way to phrase it concisely without making it more messy or repetitive. I could potentially shorten it down to something like "Iron Treads is a Pokémon resembling Donphan..." or something like that, but the repetition would still remain. Unmerging the cells would not fix the problem, as it would still remain regardless, but only with the added point that these Pokémon that are normally grouped together are now separated. If you feel there's a better way to write this, let me know, but I feel as of right now this is the most consistent and straightforward way to cover the information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quick responses. I think the list is comprehensive and meets the criteria. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pokelego999 & I discussed an informal trade of reviews, to the extent it matters.

Usual disclaimer goes here that these are suggestions, not demands, so feel free to push back. Focusing more on the lede & Reception at the moment rather than the individual Pokemon.

• Optional nit: If you know someone who speaks Japanese, it might be useful to add the trans-title parameter to your citations to JP sources. That said, this is optional; it's better to keep it as is than insert potentially inaccurate translations from raw Google Translate.
  • I unfortunately don't know anyone who does. If I did, I would probably run this by them, but I've left the titles in their original Japanese titles for now to play it safe with the naming. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Incredibly basic question: not demanding an entire naming scheme be overturned, but... is using roman numerals the most common way to refer to generations? I've seen plenty of "Gen1", "Gen4", etc. casually with Arabic numerals. Just something to think about - I rather doubt that we'll be calling them Generation XIV Pokemon in 2034.
  • Admittedly not sure. This is something a bit out of my scope and outside of the scope of this discussion, since admittedly I don't know how this naming scheme came about, and I myself never coined the article title. I'd assume it's for formality reasons or something along those lines, but admittedly a question about the title would require a reformat on the other eight lists, which is a discussion I believe doesn't fall under the scope of this FLC. Apologies that I can't really give a concrete answer on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The first Pokémon of the generation were revealed on 27 February 2022 Is this really lede-worthy information? I can see the release date of S&V being potentially of interest, but the date of the "preview" doesn't seem as interesting to me. If kept, I'd at least include the release date of S&V too (unless there was a Gen9 poke available before S&V somehow).
  • It's relatively relevant given it's the first day the main subjects of the list were confirmed. Either way, I've added SV's release date, which should help with informing readers better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. Is this a line from elsewhere? I'm personally not a fan. Maybe split it up? "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture Pokémon. The Trainer then uses their creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon."
  • It's a copypasta that is used to introduce basic information about the franchise to those unfamiliar with the series in a short, concise manner. It's been used in every other species article on this website. I feel personally the sentence is fine as one, as the run-on isn't too terribly confusing, but I can definitely split it here if you feel it's necessary and bring this up in a discussion at WT:VGCHAR. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dropped a question off at VGCHAR, but won't let that block this, happy to support even if I don't convince anyone there.
• They hail from the distant past, and thus are sometimes dubbed "Ancient Pokémon." Maybe cut "thus"? Names don't have to make sense. Same with the "thus" for Future Pokemon.
  • Cut. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Fans of the series responded negatively to many designs from the games when the games were leaked prior to release. I'm not sure that the source is strong enough for such a sweeping claim. While I'm sure the redundancy brigade might be annoyed, perhaps "some fans" to emphasize that this story was just "people griping on Twitter / Reddit" (aka day ending in 'y') rather than a widespread fan revolt? Alternatively, if it really was so widespread, then add more / better sources.
  • Clarified with "some fans" to hopefully better illustrate the source's content. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• She highlighted several designs, such as - I'm not sure "highlighted" is the right term here. "singled out" or "was disappointed in" perhaps?
  • Highlighted is meant to refer to positively received designs, in this case. The wording's unclear in any case, so I've clarified it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• should have been held to a higher standard. Not a fan of this. They can be held to whatever standard the reviewer likes. What is really meant here is whether the designs met the high standards for Pokemon which she apparently doesn't think they did - some rephrasing to get that idea across might be better.
  • I've tried re-wording this; let me know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It definitely looks better now. I would consider cutting "and felt the generation was not the worst in terms of designs" - we're already saying "doesn't meet the standard of earlier gens", not "she hated everything", so I think we've already hinted that the mood is more like "disappointment" than "dislike."
      • Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, to be clear, I was suggesting cutting "felt the generation was not the worst in terms of designs, but keeping "she felt that the majority of the designs in the game were not up to the standard of other entries in the series". Still up to you.
• Ana Diaz, writing for Polygon believed that many species, most notably Flamigo, Palafin, and Maushold, had unique and powerful traits. Noting these traits, she felt that they allowed for a more fun environment for players overall. While Polygon is a good source usually, I'm not convinced this is a good source. First of all, all she's really saying is "some Pokemon seem strong competitively" which is basically too boring to point out. Second, this was published a month after release, and she writes "it's looking like we will get a fun and varied competitive scene for Scarlet and Violet." In other words, maybe the competitive scene will be fun, which is a little different from "allowed for a more fun environment for players overall". Are there any sources written later that are a little surer on whether Gen9 competitive Pokemon genuinely was better? And if we keep this source, we should honor the slant in it - that Diaz writes that some Gen9 Pokemon had fun and cool in-gameplay abilities she hoped would be fun in competitive. (THe previous paragraph was on art design, so maybe best to clue a little harder we're talking about gameplay now.)
  • There's nothing from what I can see. A few sources from TheGamer discuss competitive but not to the extent Polygon does. I've reworded this a bit per your suggestions, since I do feel the competitive stuff is at least worth bringing up in some capacity given how many individual subjects got some coverage for this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm just saying I think we need to mention competitive here too. Diaz is specifically saying she thinks/hopes competitive will be fun thanks to these Pokemon, but the current phrasing just says " more fun environment for players overall." But plenty of Pokemon players don't bother with competitive. (it might also be worth adding the word "gameplay" in front of traits somewhere?)
      • I've tried rephrasing this per your suggestions. Let me know if more is needed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans, leading to their bans in those formats. Okay, explaining Smogon in half a sentence for a general audience is hard, I get that. But strictly speaking, being booted to Ubers isn't quite the same thing as being banned. (And yes, I know the sources say "banned", but meh.) Perhaps: "proved to be problematically strong in the single battle format, where each trainer has 6 Pokemon and sends them out one at a time. They were banned from the most popular fan format and became only usable in less restricted ones." (Even then, I'm a little concerned about portraying this as potentially unusual - the idea that some Pokemon from each gen end up in Ubers is not surprising nor scandalous. But oh well.)
  • The issue was a bit more reported on and more common than it was in prior generations, hence why it got covered more in-depth by sources and in this article. Otherwise I'd have kept it to just the individual cells. Either way, I've tried re-wording per your suggestions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not entirely happy here... "particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans" can be read a bit wrong. VGC is its own format, after all, and it's played by "fans", so a very easy misreading is to assume that these Pokes are banned in "official" formats played by fans, which isn't quite true. Smogon OU is closer to a "fan format". I just think we may have to be a little more direct here than "standard competitive formats" - I think the word "Smogon University" and "single battle" (or "singles") should be somewhere here.
      • I've tried re-wording this to be a bit more clear; I definitely see the confusion with the wording that I hadn't noticed before. I've tried placing more emphasis on the fact these are fan-run formats, though I'm opposed to name-dropping Smogon since I worry it may be confusing for readers unfamiliar with these formats. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Joe Parlock of TheGamer noted the sleek designs - See MOS:SAID. This is an opinion, not a factual-ish "note", so perhaps "praised" rather than "noted".
  • I personally disagree with this interpretation of SAID for a variety of reasons, but I won't get into that here. I tried to remove the uses of "noted" early on so as to not have to deal with this problem, but I guess I must have missed this one. Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• build Paldea's culture, stating that it was More MOS:SAID. "writing" that it was, perhaps?
  • I'm a bit confused what the issue is here, given that SAID says that "stating" is fine for this kind of thing. Could you clarify here? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, my bad this one - carry on!
• Writer Kate Gray described the number of "weirder" designs present in the generation - This needs a full rephrasing. The source is "What's The Best New Pokémon Design In Pokémon Scarlet & Violet?" So she's not just "describing" a number here. Perhaps "Kate Gray praised the "weirder" designs of Generation IX, including..."
  • Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• while writer Alan Hagues stated that the effectiveness of the simplicity of the generation's designs as being something that "wins out in some ways. I don't think this thought is that connected to Gray's ideas, so maybe two separate sentences here. If kept as one, again, this is Hagues talking about what he likes, so perhaps "Hagues thought that many of the middle and final evolutions were cool, and that the generation overall had simple yet strong art design?" Up to you.
  • Elected to use your re-wording here, as I feel it's best to keep this one source connected. This source was a pain to format, so I appreciate the help with making this a bit clearer. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely much better now.
• But also while we're here, I kinda thought that the first paragraph was on art design, and the second paragraph was on gameplay design? Why are we reverting to art design again? Am I missing something, or should these sentences be moved to the above paragraph? (or was the split supposed to be negative vs. positive? Not sure that's a good idea if so, though.)
  • Admittedly I wasn't sure where best in Reception to put the gameplay information given most of the coverage is on design reception. I'm still not, to be frank. Would you prefer it to be shifted after the discussion on design, or somewhere else? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's up to you. I'm personally a fan of "theming" paragraphs, but it isn't always feasible. It's an optional thought to consider, but it's non-actionable and optional.
    • I've shifted comp info after the second paragraph's content; I feel this information is much easier to understand without shifting straight back into design info. Let me know if you feel this can be improved upon, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Numerous individual designs have been highlighted by critics, Same problem as above. Highlighted as what? From context, yes I can tell it's "for praise", but I'd make this a little clearer.
  • Clarified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SnowFire: replied to your above comments. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the individual Pokemon write-ups... mostly looks fine, with the usual disclaimer that some of the sourcing is to borderline sites, but such is modern video games media. Alas.

• A notable Koraidon or Miraidon, depending on the player's version, serves as a major supporting character in-game ... Another notable ... - Maybe "specific" rather than "notable"? I presume it's not that said Koraidon is famous in-setting or the like.
  • Ah, good catch. I meant "notable" in the same vein as specific, but entirely missed the connotations. Issue should be fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Evil Tea Pokemon: is a different species without biological association to Sinistea At risk of getting into POKEMON BIOLOGY, the source says "they are completely separate Pokémon". I'm not sure that's quite synonymous with "without biological association." Like, platypuses are weird and separate species, but they still have some biological association to other mammals, for a real-life example.
  • In-universe they're still technically all under the "Pokémon" species, but biological association within that category is un-confirmed or incredibly unclear even in series material. In this case, though, official promo itself specifically states that Poltchageist is biologically unassociated with Sinistea, which is what the articles in question are citing. I can't check sourcing right now since I'm out, but if this is an issue with the source not specifying this is from official promo, I can see if I can find a source that specifies this. Either way, given this is actual lore information on the species and not just conjecture, I don't see a need to change this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Terpagos: It is believed to have a special tie to the Terastal phenomenon This seems a little weak. It's funny because you were saying a similar thing over in the Second Temple timeline on some "probablies", but fictional beings can have canonical answers that historical mysteries don't always have - I get the impression it clearly does have such a special tie from The Gamer article. I didn't play S&V though. If The Gamer source isn't great and is exaggerating and the current phrasing is closer to in-game, then the current wording is fine, but maybe just directly say it has a special tie if the source is accurate, no need for "believed". SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, my issue was more with wording than anything, but in this case, this is a typo on my part. This is meant to specify "in-universe," since while the out of universe ties are obvious, my initial search found nothing to confirm that given how surprisingly scarce sourcing lore information like that was given how much of a plot role this guy had. Changed this to specify but let me know on this one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: finished looking over your second round of comments. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. I made a few minor changes myself at the end, but feel free to revert or adjust them.
• Support. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SnowFire My apologies on the miscommunication of your comments. Thank you for the help! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) and Birdienest81[reply]

This is both mine and Birdienest81's fourth nomination related to the Olympic medal tables, though we both each did three separately before collaborating on this list (making this #7 that we've worked to help promote cumulatively). We believe it meets all the relevant criteria and we're hoping for this to be #16 (of 30) for the Summer Olympics medal tables to reach featured list status. We will do our best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns and feedback that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Amy Van Dyken (pictured) won four gold medals at the 1996 Summer Olympics, the most of any competing athlete - Is it really necessary to say that she's pictured? I mean, there's only one person there, I think it's pretty obvious.
• with 53 of them won at least one gold medal - Maybe "winning"?
• Would it be worth explaining in a note why those editions were boycotted?
• In addition, she also - Isn't it a bit redundant to say both "In addition" and "also"?
• Maybe link to Great Britain at the 1996 Summer Olympics in the mention on Steve Redgrave's image's caption?

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I've implemented all of your suggestions except for one. I could try to explain in a note about the boycotts that happened, but I'm not sure if it properly does it justice. In short, I'm not sure it's a great idea to try to shove so much information into a note and speak about the segregation/apartheid issues that led to a boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott because I don't think it does it justice or adds much to the article, since it would end up being a very long note for a singular sentence. However, if you feel strongly, I'll consider it further. There's also List of Olympic Games boycotts. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I wouldn't expect an in-depth explanation of what the boycotts were about and how they unfolded, but I think it would be useful to have a note saying the Olympics were boycotted for several reasons from 1976 through to 1988 and a link to that list. Don't you think? Thank you for addressing the other points. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I had been giving it some thought, and I think I was overthinking how to properly do a note for this. I've added a wikilink that I hope addresses your comment appropriately. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with all of the above, plus.....
• "Athletes from the host nation of United States" => "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....?
• "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly
• Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright"
• Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions.....
• "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." => "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events."
• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Athletes from the host nation of United States" -> "Athletes from the host nation of the United States"....? – Fixed
  • "Additionally, in the men's horitzontal bars" - penultimate word is spelt incorrectly – Fixed
  • Images beside the table should have their size set to "upright" – Set with a factor of 1.3, hope that's appropriate.
  • Is it relevant to this article that Shannon Miller had also won medals four years earlier (as mentioned in her image caption)? Other people pictured also had great achievements outwith these games e.g. Steve Redgrave is the only man in history to have won gold medals at five different Olympic Games in an endurance sport, but you don't mention it in their image captions..... – I could use a bit more feedback on this one, but I included it because of the medals in her hand in the image. I felt it that she won all of those medals at the 1996 games based on the image and I wanted to clarify
  • "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals at the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." -> "American sprinter Michael Johnson, pictured here in 1995, won two gold medals in the men's 200 metres and 400 metres events." – Fixed

  As always, thanks for the feedback Chris. A little sloppier than I usually like it to be, so I'll be more careful with my next nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment: I'm pretty certain the table requires an inline citation at the top to verify the content in it EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm embarrassed that I missed that @EnthusiastWorld37, so I very much appreciate you pointing this out to me. I'm quite disappointed with myself for the number of things called out that I shouldn't have missed, but it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have now conducted a fuller review of the list and I believe it meets the criteria and so I Support its promotion EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The short description for the article is currently "Award" - I might recommend none for this article since the title is descriptive.
• The photo of Amy Van Dyken needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
• I'm not sure why the last opening paragraph ends with ",." - is there a phrase missing there?
• I did a spot check of the metal numbers in the table and saw no problems.
• I also did a spot check of the citations and saw no concerns.

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my List of Apollo missions FLC down below. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Matthewrb, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well done! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my semi-steady FL-izing of VGK lists. Somewhat based off of the current state of FL List of Florida Panthers players (which badly needs to be updated anyways - I've got that on the docket for the next few days), I've dramatically expanded/sourced the prose of the lead, and made some accessibility edits related to the tables. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image caption isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
• "23 skaters and four goaltenders" => "The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders" (avoids starting the sentence with a digit and is also technically more accurate)
• "the Lady Byng Memorial Trophy as the NHL's most gentlemanly player" - no issues with this but it really amused me - it reads like something I would expect in cricket or polo rather than ice hockey :-)
• Some of the image captions contain factoids which I don't believe are sourced e.g. "Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games of Vegas' Finals victory" - the table only shows that he played 19 playoff games in total, not that he started 14 in 2023 specifically....
• That's all I got, great work :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude Sourced the Hill and Hague captions, as well as the Fleury 46-game bit - the rest are all either cited in the lead, or from HockeyRef/NHL/HockeyDB/etc via the tables themselves (WP:CALC and all that). Hope that fixes everything! The Kip ^(contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 51 of these skaters and five goaltenders have appeared in at least one playoff game - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• The names of 23 skaters and four goaltenders were engraved on the Stanley Cup following the Golden Knights' Finals victory in 2023, with the latter total making the Golden Knights the first team in NHL history to engrave four goaltenders on the Cup - Ditto.
• Adin Hill started 14 playoff games in the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs, including all five games - Ditto.
• To make the use of the Oxford comma consistent, add a comma after the parenthesis in (including overtime and shootout losses) and.
• Out of ignorance: shouldn't in on and off-ice be in on- and off-ice?
• The Note in note a) is unnecessary.
• The way the images are displayed at the beginning of each section is a bit weird on PC view. Given that the width of the table doesn't allow for them, wouldn't it be better to lay them out in a different way? I was thinking about something like this.

That's what I saw, The Kip. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense Corrected the various grammar/copy-edit things. As for the photos - I'd prefer not to if possible, so as to keep consistency with most other hockey lists that display the images at the side. To be quite honest I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery view - it appears a bit awkward when most of the images are larger vertically than horizontally, while all but one of the images in the linked FL are horizontally larger. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the way it is displayed now, with that big hole at the beginning of each section, but I guess it's a matter of personal taste. Nice work on the list. Support. Alavense (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "they play in the Pacific Division of the Western Conference in the National Hockey League (NHL)" - Need a source here as the 2016 NHL sources were before they started to play. These two sources could be moved up to verify "Founded ahead of the 2017–18 season as an expansion team"
• "The franchise plays its home games at T-Mobile Arena on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada" - Skyrisecities doesn't look like a reliable source. Also needs a current source to show that this is correct.
• "With the Golden Knights having reached the Stanley Cup playoffs six times in seven seasons as a franchise" - QuantHockey doesn't mention this. Extra source needed.
• "as well as playoff goals, assists, and points;" - Need a specific link from NHL Records that shows Marchessault's playoff records such as this.
• "William Karlsson is the active leader in the aforementioned regular-season categories as well as playoff points, with Mark Stone the active leader in playoff goals and Shea Theodore in playoff assists. Karlsson and Marchessault share the record for playoff games played" - Need specific sources to show that Karlsson and Thedore are active while showing they are the active leaders in these stats for the Golden Knights.
• "Brayden McNabb is the active and all-time leader in penalty minutes" - need an extra source that shows McNabb is active.
• "Ryan Reaves is the all-time leader in playoff penalty minutes, while Keegan Kolesar is the active leader." - Need specific links to show that Reaves is the all-time leader and Kolesar is the active leader.
• "Marc-Andre Fleury holds all regular-season and playoff records" - This isn't true. For instance Hill leads in playoff save percentage, so "all" must be removed.
• Secondly, Fleury needs a specific source that shows he leads in "games played, wins, losses (including overtime and shootout losses), and shutouts" for the playoffs.
• "Following the franchise's inaugural season" - Karlsson's award mentions that 2018 was the first season for the Golden Knights, not Engelland. This sentence order can be switched as they are from the same date.
• "Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player of the 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs." - Extra source needed here as The Athletic doesn't mention the trophy is a MVP award.
• "Mark Stone has served as the Golden Knights' first and thus far only captain" - Extra source needed to show Stone remains as the only captain by 2024.

Going through point by point:

• This feels unnecessary - it's one of those things that simply "is," or could even be considered common knowledge, and hasn't changed since 2016.
• I've replaced the Skyrise Cities source with one from the Las Vegas Sun (no relation to the Sun tabloids), but w/r/t them still playing there - again, another thing that feels unnecessary to need a citation for, as it's another thing that simply "is," or could also be considered common knowledge.
• Cited from HockeyRef. Seasons table is located on main franchise page.
• With Marchessault, I was actually wrong on playoff assists (that's Reilly Smith), but I cited to the specific NHL.com record tables.
• With the Karlsson/Theodore/Stone active leaders bits, I've cited QuantHockey, which bolds active players w/ VGK on the list - it still has Marchessault bolded, but I assume that will be resolved shortly, and even if not, the sentence prior already establishes that he's no longer on the team.
• With regards to McNabb as the active leader, added QuantHockey to endorse active status.
• With regards to Reaves/Kolesar, added NHL records ref for the former and QuantHockey for the latter. Again, I expect Marchessault and Carrier will be un-bolded shortly, and even then, it feels common-knowledge enough that they were part of VGK's mass departures this year.
• Changed "all" to "most."
• Replaced one source with four. This is another spot I was concerned may become citation overkill, so much so that I added an EFN to contain the refs. There's no specific page for most losses, but it's easily verified on the most wins table, which also has losses and shutouts.
• Swapped the order.
• Replaced the Athletic source, but again, also feels like common knowledge in the sports world that the Conn Smythe is the NHL playoffs MVP.
• Stone remaining the captain is another thing that simply "is"/is common knowledge. Not really sure what I can do there. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferguson's GAA is 6.50, not 6.67.
• Lagace's SV% is .868, not .871.
• I suggest adding the 2024-25 roster to show Hill is the only goaltender that's still on the team. Hockey Reference uses 2024 instead of present. Therefore, it can be confusing to determine who left in 2024 (such as Thompson) and who stayed.
• Neither HockeyDB or Hockey-Reference list the playoff stats in the team page (they're in the individual player/goalie pages). Found this source that lists them all.
• With that source, Lester's SV% for the playoffs is .911, not .920.
• I think the source that lists all of the Golden Knight players that won the Stanley Cup should be reused in the Notes column since the prose in the lead does not specifically name them.

Again point by point-ish:

• Fixed the first two according to HockeyRef.
• Doesn't really matter, as the list isn't updated until after each season anyways, by which point it'll be clear who stuck around by which guys HockeyRef lists as 2024 and which it lists as 2025 and beyond. Green is always most recent completed season anyways, which'll be 2023-24 until about 10 months from now.
• Added EliteProspects link to both tables.
• Corrected Lehner's SV%
• Going to respectfully disagree - the prose mentions 23 skaters and four goaltenders, and the sources both contain every name - I don't think the table should be cluttered by having the same redundant citation appear 27 times. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A source can be reused here to show which of the players are on the 2024-25 roster.
• Similarly, a source like Elite Prospects needs to be added for the playoffs stats.
• I also suggest reusing a source in the Notes column to show which of the skaters won the Stanley Cup.
• HockeyDB says Jonathan Marchessault was a right winger, not center.
• Paul Stastny was born in Canada.
• Oscar Lindberg was left winger.
• Jake Leschyshyn was born in the USA.
• Luca Sbisa is Italian.
• Peyton Krebs played from 2020-2022.
• Mason Morelli was a left winger.
• Tomas Jurco was a left winger.
• Dylan Sikura was a right winger.
• Vadim Shipachyov was center.
• Gage Quinney was center.
• Sven Baertschi was left winger.

Oppose for now based on the combined large amount of verification issues. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333 I’ll handle the rest a bit later, but w/r/t Stastny/Sbisa/Leschyshyn - nationality in hockey is based upon citizenship and who they’ve represented internationally, not birth country. Sbisa’s played for the Swiss national team, Stastny the U.S. one, and Leschyshyn played for a Canada team at the U17s - they all hold citizenship(s) there as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, sources would be needed to verify that as HockeyDB only gives country of birth. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, individual verification of that and a few other things on the list would, at least in my opinion, be veering into citation overkill. Some of the items on the list are things that just simply “are,” and aren’t contentious or likely to be challenged. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the nationalities wouldn't be something that passes Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Featured List List of Philadelphia Flyers players explains why Knuble is listed as American and not Canadian, while listing a citation in the note. The same could be done here by adding references into a note for Stastny, Leschyshyn and Sbisa. Otherwise, the nationalities column could be switch to country of birth instead and won't require any extra sources. What else do you believe do not need citations? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll add a similar note to the table for their nationalities - switching it to the country of birth would be misleading/inaccurate to readers. As for the other things I have qualms about citations on, I'll go section by section above. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point:

• Doesn't really matter, per above.
• Added already.
• Disagree, per above.
• Positions are a finicky thing in hockey, and various sites agree or disagree. W/r/t those mentioned:

• NHL.com and HockeyRef list Marchessault as a C, so I'll keep it that way. I'm generally inclined to go with whatever NHL.com says unless it's alone as the minority.
• NHL.com agrees that Lindberg was a LW, HR says C. EliteProspects has it both ways and lists him as a C/LW - I'll change him to LW given that's the majority.
• NHL.com agrees that Morelli is an LW, and HR just lists him as "forward." EP has C, but LW appears to be the majority.
• NHL.com lists Jurco as an RW, as does HR. EP says LW/RW, so I'm going with RW.
• NHL.com says Sikura was an RW, HR says C, and EP says LW/RW. I'll go with RW.
• NHL.com and EP list Shipachyov as a C, HR says LW, so I'll swap to C.
• NHL.com says Quinney was a C; EP says C/LW, while HR just says forward. I'll swap to C.
• All four say Baertschi was an LW - not really sure how he ended up entered as a C.

• We already discussed the nationalities issue.
• Krebs bit fixed. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: Here's a summary of what's leftover that I believe needs to be done:

• Keefer 2016 Las Vegas Sun source does not say the location of T-Mobile Arena. Found this 2023 source which could be used instead as it has both the Strip and Paradise. Otherwise, a current source such as this could be used instead while removing The Strip and Paradise.
• Need this QuantHockey regular season source next to the QuantHockey playoffs source to verify Karlsson's records.
• Shea Theodore is the record holder for regular season assists, not Karlsson per QuantHockey.
• With Mark Stone, you could use this source instead that shows he's been the only captain.
• For the current roster for goaltenders & skaters, you could use "2024" instead of "present" if you don't want to use the 2024 roster. All three sources (HockeyDB, Hockey-Reference, Elite Prospects) use that format and it won't require extra sourcing.
• The Stanley Cup list of names could be reused twice, (once each next to the word Notes in the Goaltenders and Skaters tables). I agree using it 27 times isn't needed.
• For Jurco, Marchessault, and Sikura's positions, you could cite their NHL profiles. The other 5 are fine.
• Thank you for adding a note for Sbisa being Swiss. You could also add Leschyshyn and Stastny as well as they are the only ones that don't match their place of birth. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the SN source, though I really feel like the Strip/Paradise is the sort of geographic general knowledge that could be covered by this higher-quality source instead, rather than having to individually cite both. Again, I don't think the location is contentious or likely to be challenged.
• Done.
• Fixed/updated.
• Used an NHL records page instead that lists him as captain from 2021-present.
• I still disagree that the 2024/present thing is an issue. We don't need to overload readers with citation overkill when it'd be fairly common knowledge to the majority of readers who reach this page that certain players are or aren't still on the team. If they're unsure, despite the 2024/present being listed in the table, they can click through to the player's wikilink, which contains said info. Listing current players as 20XX-2024 is misleading. And again - the table won't be updated until after next season anyways at which point HockeyRef/QuantHockey/etc will make it clear that some guys stayed beyond 2024 and some didn't.
• I also still disagree here - having it linked in the prose is enough, same for the other awards. They're also all listed and cited at the linked Finals page.
• And here. Citing individual positions is overkill - no other NHL FL has it, or really sports FLs in general. I might just list Sikura as an forward, given the disagreements from sources.
• Sbisa is merely the example the note uses - the general content of it applies to Stastny/Leschyshyn, same as the Flyers FL.

The Kip ^(contribs) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the positions, it's understandable that sources disagree which winger position Sikura and Jurco played. However, the cited sources (HockeyDB and Elite Prospects) says Marchessault was a winger. It might be easier to add a note with source for Marchessault only explaining that NHL.com and/or HockeyRef says he's a center. Taking a look at the Flyers FL, I'm fine with following the format of citing the Stanley Cup winners once and just adding a note for the nationalities contradiction. I do see that the Flyers FL uses present instead of 2024. However, as you feel that it's not necessarily, I'll leave it be. Once the clarification for Marchessault is addressed, you're good to go. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333 I've added a note on Marchessault - let me know if it works. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Support MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs with "NFL.com" should be changed to National Hockey League (and wikilinked). There's quite a few source you have from the NHL added already and this would be better for consistency.
• Ref 27 uses the website field instead of publisher for NHL, which is acceptable based on the Template:Cite web, but consistency and all
• Date formatting in references is inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|September 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description
• Ref 38 – We typically remove the site name from reference titles, so exclude " – EliteProspects"
• Was the goal originally to only link the first occurrence in some instances? I ask because it looks kind of like it, but I'm seeing a lot of inconsistences in the linking of publishers/websites in the references
• Ref 7 and general reference 1 – Remove ".com", since the article is at HockeyDB
• Could probably do with a run of iabot
• Refs 1, 2, 10, 23, 24, and 27 are actually links that immediately redirect, so they should be updated to the direct links

That's what I've got for now. Good stuff Kip, as always! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Sorry for the delay - life's caught up with me lately! Should have these fully addressed by tomorrow or Monday. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just ping me when you do. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh should be all taken care of. Wikilinked all websites/publishers/works, added the mdy dates template, and ran IABot, among the other things. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh not to bother - everything good with the updates? The Kip ^(contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely appropriate to bother in this case @The Kip. I'm pleased with it all, so I support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

---

Nominator: XR228 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Seattle Kraken FL nom—this time it's their players. This should meet all the criteria. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead seems a tiny bit thin. Maybe you could add some info about the player with most games, most goals, etc.....?
• "his captaincy starting in 2021, and ending 6 months later." - that comma is not needed
• Not sure this is relevant to this article, but you say that a captain is the only one who can talk to the ref, yet the Kraken have only had a captain for six months out of their entire history? Does this mean that for the rest of the time nobody could talk to the ref?
• Is the dagger really needed in the key given that it literally isn't used at all in the tables?
• Beniers being the first ever draft choice need sourcing
• Ref 5, the only one against the skaters table, does not support Beniers being a Calder Trophy winner
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman), have played - Lose that last comma.
• In the caption of the first picture, Kraken is mentioned thrice. The second one, for example, could be replaced with a the team or something similar.
• Captains are required to wear the letter "C" on their uniform for identification, which is 3 inches (7.6 cm) in height - I don't think that sentence is clear enough.
• ending 6 months later - MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words".
• There's something wrong with Matty Beniers's caption.
• Nat should be Nat. and Pos should be Pos.. Besides, please consider using {{abbr}} for those and also for the others.
• There are no notes in the first table, so you can get rid of that empty column.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I have made most of the changes. Could you let me know what is wrong with Matty Beniers's caption? Thanks XR228 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, XR228. There's a full stop followed by a word in lowercase. That needs fixing. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I have fixed it. XR228 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk page is tagged with a synthesis issue and should be resolved.
• "members of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" - need an extra source next to HockeyDB to show they are members of the Western Conference.
• "Since their arrival in 2021, 59 players, 4 goaltenders and 55 skaters (forwards and defenseman) have played in a Kraken jersey for at least one regular season game." - Needs a source here such as the HockeyDB roster list.
• The Captain quote should start with "the privilege of discussing with the Referee" (capital R included).
• "being 3 inches (7.6 cm)" - NHL says "approximately" not exactly.
• There's an updated version of the NHL rules from 2023 in regards to Captain if you wish to use it.
• "starting in 2021 and ending six months later" - "starting in October 2021 and ending five months later" (as Giordano held captaincy until March 2022).
• "As the Kraken currently do not have a captain, they are allowed to name four alternate captains" - Condor 2021 source isn't needed here as it was already established that Giordano was captain. However, this sentence need an extra source next to Lukan 2022 source that shows the four alternative captains are still the case in 2024.
• The Career Most points for the Kraken is referenced three times and should be once instead.
• Most career goals for the Kraken is at a different link.
• Most career assists for the Kraken is at this link.

• This table needs extra source(s) as the majority of the regular season stats and all of the playoff stats are not included in HockeyDB. Only stat mentioned there is the games played.

• This table needs an extra source as the playoff stats are not mentioned at HockeyDB.
• Jared McCann was a left winger.
• André Burakovsky was born in Austria.
• Tye Kartye was a left winger.
• Joonas Donskoi played from 2021-2022.
• Marcus Johansson was a left winger.
• Derrick Pouliot had 2 PIM in the regular season.
• John Hayden was a center player.
• Alexander True played from 2021-2022.
• Logan Morrison was center.

Oppose for now. While there's a lot of verification issues, I'm mainly concerned with the synthesis tag and the majority of the goaltending stats being unreferenced. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: I have made the changes. I do want to note that while Burakovsky was born in Austria, he played for the Swedish national team. I also see that a similar situation has happened on @The Kip's review of List of Vegas Golden Knights players, so I'll go ahead and add a note for that in the table. Also, if time permits, could you please take a look at my other nomination? Thanks. XR228 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the list and the sources you've added, only a few things remain:

• Martin Jones's regular season SV% was .886 according to Hockey-Reference..
• Logan Morrison should be center, not forward.
• The note about Burakovsky being Swedish should have a source.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you for the quick changes. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For regular readers of these lists, there will be little surprise that Steve Davis is at the summit. Two former World Champions, Alex Higgins and Cliff Thorburn, were banned for a couple of ranking tournaments each. As ever, many thanks in advance for improvement suggestions, and I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The list for the 1986–87 snooker season was the first to only take account of results over two seasons" - maybe mention that it also started to take into account other tournaments, otherwise some of the subsequent sentences don't really make sense
• "A proposal by Barry Hearn [....] made a proposal" - some of these words can be removed
• "after Higgind had been found guily in our of headbutting" - two words spelt wrong here and also "guilty in our".....?
• ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament, the player was not eligible to enter" => ""N" denotes that as a non-tournament player, the player was not eligible to enter"
• Graham Cripsey's row has a totally blank cell
• That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw nothing wrong with either the prose or the tables. Being a bit persnickety, I'd suggest editing the {{sequence}} template at the end, so that it adjusts to the way seasons are now formatted in titles. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's a sensible change. Thank you, Alavense. Done for this article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Have conducted a full review and cannot find anything to fault EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the 2011 Pacific hurricane season lacked in tropical cyclones, it made up in the general strength of each one. The season produced eleven tropical storms, which is below average for the basin, but ten of them became hurricanes (!!) and even the eleventh peaked just under hurricane strength. Half of the hurricanes reached Category 4 intensity... and yet, the most devastating system of the season was too weak to be classified as a tropical storm. Tropical Depression Twelve-E generated torrential rainfall over southeastern Mexico and adjacent portions of Central America; widespread flooding and mudslides killed over 30 people. This is the eighth hurricane season timeline that I have nominated in an ongoing series. I hope the community enjoys reading, and I will respond to any questions or concerns as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything to point out. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 20 images are provided. They are appropriate, relevant and extensive, picturing all the major storms of the season, with ten showing the tracks of the storms and ten satellite images depicting the storms.
• All have ALT text for accessibility.
• The images of the tracks are created by Cyclonebiskit, Keith Edkins and Titoxd. They have relevant international PD tags.
• Adrian 2011-06-10 0000Z (cropped).png is provided by the US Navy and has a relevant PD tag.
• 12-E Oct 12 2011 1715Z.jpg, 8-E Aug 31 2011 1955Z.jpg, Beatriz 2011-06-21 0900Z (cropped).jpg, Hilary 2011-09-23 2000Z (cropped) (cropped).jpg, Hurricane Eugene Aug 3 2011 2110Z.jpg, Hurricane Jova Oct 10 2011 2045Z.jpg and Tropical Storm Fernanda Aug 17 2011 1955Z.jpg are provided by NASA, with relevant PD tags.
• Hurricane Dora July 21 1445Z.jpg and Hurricane Kenneth Nov 22 2011 1800Z (cropped).jpg are provided by and NOAA and have relevant PD tags.
• Three images are marked as cropped and are based on source images that also have valid PD tags.

I see no issues with the images. Pass. simongraham (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Can you do any better on ref 10? I might be misunderstanding this, but it looks like that's a website for a company formerly called Radio Levy or something?
• Ref 6 – EFE should be the agency, while Univision would be the work or website (like ref 5)
• Ref 25 – Remove the link to Atlanta, Georgia for consistency

That's all I've got. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Josh for the feedback; I have addressed your comments. I found a ref from CENAPRED to replace ref 10, as well as ref 9 which had previously been used as a source for tourism losses (since the new source—which focuses on the effects of Mexican natural disasters—directly mentions risks to the tourism industry shortly before mentioning Jova). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth list in this series that I am nominating for FL. The format is similar to the previous lists that have been promoted in this series. -- EN-Jungwon 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Inkigayo implemented modifications for its measurements of albums" => "Inkigayo implemented modifications to its measurements of albums"
• "Chae-yeon was later replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting the February 17 broadcast." => "Chae-yeon was replaced by actress Shin Eun-soo starting with the February 17 broadcast."
• "Two other soloist had" => "Two other soloists had"
• "Singer Taeyeon had two singles rank number one on the chart in 2019;" - semi-colon at the end should be a colon (:)
• "The latter of which went on to" => "The latter of these went on to" (you can't use "which" in that way if you have started a new sentence)
• Itzy and Dalla Dalla are overlinked in the lead
• "making Itzy the artist" => "making Itzy the act" ("artist" can only be used to refer to soloists)
• "formed through the and fourth seasons" - is there a word missing there?
• "with their debut single "Flash" September 8" => "with their debut single "Flash" on September 8"
• That's it, I think! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, all done. Thanks as always. -- EN-Jungwon 00:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now have "X1, formed through the fourth seasons of Produce 101 gained" - were they formed through just the fourth season? If so, remove the s from seasons. Oh, and you need a comma after produce 101 to end the clause -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, thanks for catching that. It has now been fixed. -- EN-Jungwon 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "May 5" doesn't sort properly in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 fixed. Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? -- EN-Jungwon 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should the song "%% (Eung Eung)" sort under "Eung Eung"? I'm not sure, but my gut says yes.

  Support on table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• till October 6, 2019 - The "2019" isn't needed there.
• IU had two singles rank at number one achieved with "Love Poem" and "Blueming". The latter of these went on to achieve a triple crown in December. Girl group Itzy achieved their first ever number one on the chart with their debut single "Dalla Dalla" - Three "achieve"s in three sentences.
• They previously accomplished the distinction the previous year with "Starry Night" - "They had previously accomplished" maybe?
• Other first time number ones - "first-time".

That's what I saw, EN-Jungwon. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @EN-Jungwon as a casual follow up about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense @Hey man im josh all done. Thanks for the reminder. -- EN-Jungwon 01:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Additional disclaimer: I can't read Korean.
• "Two other soloists had more than one number one single in 2019. Singer Taeyeon had two singles rank number one on the chart in 2019: "Four Seasons" in April and "Spark" in November. IU had two singles rank at number one achieved with "Love Poem" and "Blueming"." Redundancy isn't a sin, but I think there's too much of it here. I suggest something like this: Two other soloists had more than one number one single in 2019: Taeyeon, with "Four Seasons" and "Spark", and IU, with "Love Poem" and "Blueming". [include the links]
• "Their succeeding single "Icy"": Articles on Wikipedia, especially articles about songs, are much more likely to use "succeeding" to mean "being successful", and I don't think that's what you mean here ... you mean it was their second single, right?
• Did you decide how you want to sort "%% (Eung Eung)" in the table? I see that was discussed above.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Apart from those points, nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant 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, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008 and EN-Jungwon: Giants, I'm in the middle of something ... I see that my comments weren't actioned, so I need to take another look at this later today. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank, All done. I'm very sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for reviewing this list. Really appreciate it. -- EN-Jungwon 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's not even a small problem ... I just wanted someone to look at this before it got promoted. All good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit:, since you're co-nomming ... I see that Jungwon hasn't edited since Sept. 5. What did you think of my first 3 points ... agree, disagree? - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references appear to be reliable and well-formatted overall, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil has 24 WHS and 22 tentative sites. Some sites are very fresh and there's plenty of nature. Since the list for Argentina was my sole running nomination and just got promoted, I am adding a new one. Standard style. Tone 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Egypt is running and is seeing support, somehow I forgot about that nomination. Anyway, nothing changes. Tone 06:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "of the sugarcane industry".
• For "Ruins of Sao Miguel das Missoes (Brazil)" it would to add some info about the only site in Brazil along with the general info about all five missions.
• "centre of the sugar industry".
• "the Cathedral Basilica of Salvador, the Church and Convent of São Francisco, Salvador, and the Church of the Third Order of Mount Carmel."
• "The church, which is from the second half of the 18th century, is"
• " in the Italian-inspired Rococo style."
• is there a good wikilink for "ceramic-farmer societies"
• "the beach with a paving of hewn stones "
• "The park is located on the coast of the Maranhão State. It comprises a vast expanse of sandy dunes with temporary and permanent lagoons." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! As for the link, the most appropriate seems to be the Formative stage, but not ideal and may look like an Easter egg. Old-world equivalent would be Neolithic but that clearly does not apply to Brazil. Tone 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...continuing

  • "only atoll in the South Atlantic".
  • "The site was inscribed to the World Heritage List as the Brazilian Atlantic Islands"
    • Use either "inscribed on" or "added to".
    • Also, if this is already inscribed, then what is the change? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. This is one of the cases where a tentative site gets promoted in another nomination and they forgot to do the cleanup of the list ;) Happens every now and then. Tone 10:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest linking New World.
• Same for Christian art.
• I know it's in the source, but I feel as if most spectacular is a bit of a vague term.
• Link hunter-gatherer.
• azulejo already implies that it's ceramic, so azulejo ceramic tiles sounds a bit weird.
• which were in past connected - Maybe "in the past"?
• one of the worlds
• various adaptation - I feel "adaptations" would be better?
• Given that the Oxford comma is used throughout the text, it would be better to include it for the Provincial Palace, the Church and Convent of Santa Cruz (pictured) and the Misericórdia Hospital and Church as well.
• the latter two now being used as a museum and an architecture reference centre - Respectively? If so, I'd suggest adding it.
• The cultural landscape or the region
• by the team of architects - Maybe "by a team of architects featuring..."?
• for grazing and cultivation which presents - A comma is missing.
• which used to span over all north-east Brazil but has since shrunk due to human activity - Either specify when it used to span all over the north-east or remove the "since".
• Parts of the ceiling has
• Immediately after that, the same problem with "since" once more.
• Ought Cerrado to be italicized?
• accelerated development of São Paulo - "the development"
• Construction of the track - "The construction"
• due to the demanding geography - Is the geography what's demanding? Or is it maybe the orography?
• The surroundings of the dam are interesting on itself - On themselves, on their own?
• the native Kiriri people whose - A comma is missing.
• a physician and epidemiologist Oswaldo Cruz - "The"?

That's what I saw. Nice work, Tone. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: Just following up about the above concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On it soon. Yesterday I sorted the comments for Egypt, Brazil is next :) Tone 16:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Tone has been offline the last 4 days, but I do expect that the concerns will be addressed when they're back online. Nomination isn't particularly old, so I'm not going to ping or rush them yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I plan to work on this today and tomorrow. Tone 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: Alright, done! Huh, that took me some time to fix, sorry. Linking Christian art sounds a bit vague to me, the rest I mostly agree with and I've fixed. Thanks again for checking! Tone 19:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Support, good stuff Tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my list of Packers' players lists. As always, happy to address any comments or concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "made up of the best rookies" - link rookie
• "Johnnie Gray became the Packers first selection" => "Johnnie Gray became the Packers' first selection"
• That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, got them both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong. I was just wondering if references 9-14 and 15, 10, 16 and 17, those two groups, could be bundled into single footnotes. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alavense, I have no issues implementing it, although I am having trouble technically on how to accomplish it. Do you have an example page you can point to that has this implemented? My main challenge is that the sources you are noting are using reference tags already, so I would be wrapping reference tags inside reference tags. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to do it myself as well and I didn't manage to do it because of what you say. In any case, it was no more than a suggestion, nothing relevant. So I'll support. Nice work, as always. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• James Lofton's row is 1978–1986, but you used two digit years for the second year in all of the rows (except when crossing between centuries)
• Randall Cobb's row has the same issue with 2011–2018
• Might be a good idea to put a line break in the header for alignment since that column is looking a little wide and you already have two columns that start a new line
• The names in the 2006, 2009, and 2014 rows aren't alphabetical by last name like the other years with multiple entries

That's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, all fixed. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went all of June without nominating anything to FLC, so here's a second July nom to compensate 🤠 The 1995 Pacific hurricane season was the quietest in 16 years and heralded the start of an era of lower activity for the basin (some particularly active seasons during the 2010s be damned). Even so, the season still featured three Category 4 hurricanes on the Saffir–Simpson scale (out of only 10 storms overall, which I'd say is a rather impressive ratio), as well as the deadly Hurricane Ismael, whose name was retired the following spring. "Only" a Category 1 at its peak intensity, Ismael used the element of surprise as a weapon, thrusting itself into the Gulf of California and onto the Mexican coast sooner than anticipated. As a result, many on land and at sea were unprepared for the storm, and over 100 people were killed. I do have another nomination currently open, but it already has a couple supports, and there are presently no concerns that have not been addressed. As always, I look forward to the community's feedback, and will aim to rectify any qualms as quickly as possible. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dylan. I plan on commenting on both this nomination and your other active nomination further shortly. For now, I will note that there is a red link to what should be the article for the timeline on the 1996 Pacific hurricane season in the lede navigation box. Are there plans to create this article in the near future? If not, I would suggest adding a redirect link to the timeline on the main 1996 Pacific hurricane season article.

Also, while only tangentially related to this subject, the name that replaced Ismael (i.e. Israel), had to be itself removed because of negative reception (which given current events, makes one wonder how no one even thought about those negative implications until half a decade later). AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, it's good to see you! I'll switch out the link shortly – I do intend to create a timeline for the 1996 season in the near-ish future, but I'm not quite sure what near-ish is because there are other projects I have in the pipeline. As for the Ismael–Israel issue (which I agree with you is utterly baffling), I thought about including it, but just didn't quite think it was relevant enough to mention in the lede. The paragraph where Ismael's impacts are described is already pretty beefy, and I wanted to make sure I had room to mention Flossie and Henriette's impacts, too. I see you also have an FLC up – I'll be sure to take a look in the next couple days or so! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @AndrewPeterT, just following up on this since you left a comment about your intents. No pressure! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I plan on having comments by the end of the day next Monday, September 2. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specific feedback - Oppose (edited 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)) until comments are resolved

@Dylan620: Here is what I noticed going through the list:

1. For the satellite images of Adolph, Barbara, Erick, Flossie, and Henriette, their source link sends me to a dead link.
2. For the satellite image of Cosme, the source link takes me to a sign-in page where the photo is not visible.
3. For the satellite image of Ismael, I am taken to this search database, where I (and presumably others) do not know how to locate the photo.
4. Regarding

   the final, Hurricane Juliette, dissipated on September 26, making this season the first since the beginning of the satellite era in which no tropical cyclones were active after September

   in the lede: The cited source only establishes that the 1995 season was the first in the satellite era without an October eastern Pacific tropical cyclone. I would recommend rewriting this sentence or finding another source that explicitly supports this claim (although I do believe it is true).

   I've added a citation to HURDAT. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Regarding

   Flossie in August remained off the coast of Mexico but passed close enough to cause gusty winds and flooding rains; seven people died ... An eighth death occurred after Flossie helped generate severe thunderstorms and flash floods in Arizona

   in the lede: This seems like WP:UNDUE weight of Hurricane Flossie's impacts, especially considering that the storm never made landfall. Perhaps simply stating that Flossie caused eight fatalities would suffice?

   I've been thinking about this, and I just can't agree that there is an issue with undue weight here. Flossie may not have made landfall, but it was still the only storm not named Ismael to cause fatalities during the season, and while it wasn't terribly destructive, it still caused non-negligible damage in Mexico and Arizona. I felt like it was appropriate to structure the impacts paragraph so that roughly half of it discussed Ismael, with Flossie and Henriette each getting a quarter. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Regarding

   Tropical Depression Adolph is last noted as a tropical cyclone about 320 mi (520 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula; it dissipates shortly thereafter

   in the June 21 section: This sentence is missing a period at the end.

   D'oh! I've no clue how I missed this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Regarding Barbara's descriptions in the July 17 and July 18 sections: Is there a way that these coordinates can be reported in terms of distance from somewhere in Hawaii (e.g. Hilo, Hawaii)? I ask because nowadays, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center tends to report tropical cyclone distances from the Hawaiian islands as opposed to Mexico in their advisories.

   I've added citations to the CPHC's post-season report to support using Hilo as a location reference point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Regarding

   Tropical Depression Seven-E forms from a large and "monsoon-like" area of low pressure about 310 mi (500 km) west-southwest of Acapulco, Guerrero

   in the August 7 section: The cited source notes that the "monsoon-like" mode of formation means that tropical waves are not the primary large-scale forcing. Furthermore, the source mentions that Seven-E (i.e. Hurricane Flossie) formed within a low-pressure area and a large, deep cyclonic circulation. Could this entry be reworded to better account for this information?

   I've rephrased this to an area of low pressure within a broad region of cyclonic rotation. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Finally, and more generally, is there a way that the abbreviations used can be linked to their "full" form per MOS:SOURCEABBR? For example, mi is used consistently in the list's body, but there is no explicit language relating it to mile(s), as used in the lede.

   I've attempted to address this by piping links to mile and kilometer on each first usage of mi or km in a given month. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this list is very well-organized and provides a comprehensive yet accessible understanding of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season. However, the fact that every satellite image has sourcing concerns is enough for me to withhold my support at this time per #5(b) of WP:FLCR. Once my feedback, especially the first three points, is addressed, I look forward to supporting this nomination. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, thank you for the constructive criticism. I'm off to bed because I have work early in the morning, but (I think) I have already addressed a few of your concerns—specific replies inline. I'll resume with the rest tomorrow, including contacting the uploaders of the satellite images. Unfortunately, many of the best satellite images on Commons seem to be from limited-access sources; I don't know how to access them, either. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT: OK, so I reached out to the uploaders and they either provided me with updated URLs or fixed the links themselves, so that issue should now be resolved. The images that can readily be seen by searching the sites provide rather oblique/tilted views of the EPAC tropical cyclones because the satellites aren't positioned directly above the storms. At this discussion, one of the uploaders (courtesy ping CooperScience) explained their process for making the images so that there was an overhead view of each storm. They downloaded satellite data in the form of tarballs, and (based on the summary tags of the Commons uploads) superimposed that data over NOAA imagery of the terrain, showing what the storm looked like from directly overhead. I can only assume that a similar process was applied for the other satellite images. In other words, those sites do not contain the images as they appear on Commons, but they do provide the satellite data that was used to render the images (though I don't know what external program[s] would be used to superimpose the data). I hope this assuages your concerns about the sourcing for the satellite images. I have also finished replying to your other, prose-related comments: I acted on most, but there was one that I didn't feel would be an improvement. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thank you for addressing my feedback. At this time, I feel that you have adequately resolved my concerns. Therefore, I now support this nomination. Good luck with the rest of the process! AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• 1 ref is missing its archive link.
• The lead image is missing alt text.
• No issues that I could see in the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your feedback MPGuy2824; I believe I have addressed both of your comments. Turns out I had the parameter name wrong for the infobox alt text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Equator really need to be uppercase?
  • I had long thought "the Equator" to be a proper noun in this context, and am picking up mixed signals as to which case it should be in. On one hand, the Google Books Ngram Viewer indicates that "the equator" is more common in literature; on the other hand, when I checked the MOS for direct guidance, it was capitalized on the only usage I could find (see MOS:SEASON). This discussion from a couple years ago didn't seem to reach a consensus as to whether one was more appropriate than the other. I've erred on the side of the Ngram and de-capitalized the word. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• an average Pacific hurricane season generated 15 tropical storms, eight hurricanes, and four major hurricanes - As per MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• Ditto for only 11 tropical depressions developed, of which 10 strengthened into named tropical storms. Seven became hurricanes, of which three further intensified into major hurricanes.
  • Good catch; I've fixed both of the above. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would come in handy to have links to hurricanes, depressions and so on in the captions. What do you think?
  • Couldn't hurt! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Alavense – I think I've addressed everything. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, Dylan620, and good work. Support. Alavense (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like anyone has done a Source check for this article yet so I will be doing so. I'm going to do this in a table format and update as I go, as that is what is easiest for me. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check

Section	Status	Sources I can't access	Comments
Lead	In progress
Time	In progress		"06:00 UTC (11:00 p.m. PDT, May 20) at 13.2°N 104.2°W – Tropical Depression One-E forms from an Intertropical Convergence Zone disturbance about 405 mi (650 km) south of Manzanillo, Colima; it simultaneously attains peak winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)." Your source says the winds only reached 30mph. Source also says that it was 350 mi south. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The winds in the NHC's reports are listed in knots, not mph; 30 knots * 1.151 = 34.53 mph, which rounds to 35. Distances are also given in nautical miles instead of statute miles; 350 nmi * 1.151 = 402.85 miles, which rounds to 405. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Your source doesn't support the "about 525 mi (845 km) southwest of Manzanillo, Colima" and "about 815 mi (1,315 km) west-southwest of Manzanillo, Colima". Were these numbers reached based on the coordinates given or am I missing something? IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] The NHC's website provides a latitude/longitude distance calculator, which I used to calculate the distances between the location points provided in the NHC's reports and the coordinates of each city or geographic landmark as provided at the top of the Wikipedia article for the reference point in question (in this case, Manzanillo, Colima). Bearing was ascertained by repeating the process with this script. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] "755 mi (1,215 km) south-southeast of the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula" Your source doesn't mention the exact location or peninsula part. Was that again based on coordinates? IntentionallyDense (talk) Yeah, I used the coordinates provided for the Cabo San Lucas article, just tweaked slightly (22.875°N, 109.96°W) so I could get as close as I could to the exact southern tip of the peninsula. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop for now as I'm a bit confused about how you are getting specific number that the sources don't have. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking this up IntentionallyDense – I've responded inline to the feedback you've given so far. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to go ahead with this source check just because I lack knowledge in this area and I don’t think I can properly evaluate the sources if I can’t interpret them. Sorry for any confusion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries IntentionallyDense – I can't fault you for not feeling comfortable in an unfamiliar topic area, and I appreciate that you were willing to take this on. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review – All of the images I checked (a representative handful) have appropriate free licenses, and they all have appropriate captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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