Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:



The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations[edit]

List of cities founded by Alexander the Great[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander the Great rather liked the sound of his own name, but not as much as some people have thought. This is a listing of settlements generally considered possibly founded by the Macedonian king, accompanied by a discussion of those which people have connected to him erroneously.

This is my first FLC nomination; if successful, I will be using this nomination in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I'm not a historian and I haven't read the sources, but I can say that the writing is generally clear. Nice work.
  • The links you've supplied for recension and bematists are helpful, but most readers usually don't click on most links, so a quick description for each would be helpful.
  • "Although it is incorrect that Alexander named all his foundations after himself": I don't think readers need to be disabused of this notion (at least, not before you've established that there are people who believe this); it's not something they're likely to assume in the first place.
  • The "Location" column isn't sortable, and that's fine with me, because the table is short enough (at 13 rows) to make it easy to eyeball the whole thing. If other reviewers disagree (or if you create similar tables in the future that have more rows), then I'd probably suggest sorting on the modern-day day name of whichever country the site is in.
  • Per MOS:BC, it's "BC", not "B.C.".
  • I know that some people don't like "332–1 BC". My understanding is that WP:MOSNUM disallows it ("never 1881–882 or 1881–2"), but I'm aware that some historians insist on this notation. I'm just raising the issue so that other people can deal with it if they feel like dealing with it.
  • There's no requirement for a set number of images, but images can be useful in luring reviewers in to take a look at your work. Maps such as File:AlexanderIndiaMap.jpg might be useful.
  • Opinions vary on how much self-reference is best in lists. Some reviewers reject descriptions such as "this is a list of ...", but others think that, phrased one way or another, you have to say what's in the list to meet the FLC criteria. "(see Other settlements below)" doesn't feel right to me, though.
  • "While first-century AD Pausanias, Pliny, and Aelius Aristides recorded traditions which held": too convoluted. Simplify.
  • The first and last two images need alt text.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table. (There's an argument that the dates should sort in the reverse order, but I don't think that's important.)
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review; I'll peek in again after a source review is done). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine (except as mentioned above).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. You might want to comment on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of dasyuromorphs[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We continue our journey through the thousands of animal species in mammalia with number 24 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (10 lists for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 3 lists for Lagomorpha, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, Scandentia, Macroscelidea, and Afrosoricida). For this one we go to Australia with a single-order list for Dasyuromorphia, aka most of the carnivorous marsupials of that continent. Most of these 72 species are small insect-eaters, except for the two big ones: the Tasmanian devil, and the extinct thylacine, but all of them will eat pretty much any creatures they can get their mouths around. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "while the thylacine ate larger mammals and livestock" - I would change this to "and the thylacine ate larger mammals and livestock"
  • No need to relink thylacine in the last para of the lead
  • Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list because Vietnamese politics is exciting! Hopefully, you find this list as exciting as I do. I nominated this list by happenstance—I was planning to start work on the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party—but I saw that Wikipedia was missing some very basic articles on the CPV. I didn't create this article, but I modelled it on another FL. I, however, made some changes of my own to improve referencing and style.

I know that communist politics, and Vietnamese politics more generally, is not the sexiest topic in the world, but I hope some of you will take your time to review it. TheUzbek (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

74th Primetime Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the 2022 Creative Arts ceremony at multiple supports at FLC, here's the main ceremony from that year. This ceremony could feel like more of the same, though there were some pleasant surprises. The list is modeled off the 72nd and 73rd ceremonies, both FLs. As always, any feedback is much appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "than any other network/platform": per MOS:SLASH, if "than any other network or platform" would work, use that (unless there's something going on here that I don't know about).
  • "but only won 26 this year": "this" becomes a MOS:CURRENT problem when you're talking about 2022 in 2023 (because it would be natural for many readers to assume you literally mean "this year"). Reword.
  • I have no idea what's going on with the license for File:210305 이정재.jpg since I don't read Korean. I don't know if it's a problem or not.
    • I'm assuming you are referring to the link, which has been fixed. If not, let me know.
  • I don't have any preference on where to sort "The 64th Annual Grammy Awards" ... you've got it under "G". That's not usually what I see at WP:FLC.
    • I was copying them based on how the sources order them, and they seem to sort by "Grammy" (same with the Tonys, Golden Globes, etc.).
      • Okay, now I see "DEFAULTSORT:Grammy Awards" at the bottom of the page. Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Beatles: Get Back": Sort it under "B".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. By the time you see this, I may have done a little copyediting ... if so, feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine (except as mentioned above).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Dank: I left a few comments to clarify; thanks as always for your review! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @PresN: I can't tell if File:210305 이정재.jpg would normally pass an image review, in part since I don't read Korean but also because of the image source (YouTube). I don't know if it's a problem or not, and I'm not even sure who to ask about this. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Dank: YouTube screenshots are allowed as long as the video where it was taken from was released under Creative Commons. In this case, the video source has a CC license. According to YouTube's help page, videos will be marked under a CC BY 3.0 license, which is allowed per Commons:Licensing. Harushiga (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I'm not really sure what an FLC-level image review is supposed to be ... I just know that, in harder cases, whatever it is, it's above my pay grade, and I need to yell for help, as I did here. I'm sure RunningTiger knows image rules better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Saxifragales families[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The previous Featured LIsts in this list series are linked in the "See also" section; those lists and their WP:FLC discussions do a pretty good job of covering the story so far. Enjoy! - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I can >:(. Just kidding. I'm nominating because I have been working on it on and off for some time now, and I believe it is on par with the other articles. Documentaries are often ignored when it comes to media, but they can be very helpful in informing oneself, especially for people who may not have time to read books. A cross-medium category that includes both film and television documentaries, the only one from this list I've actually seen is The Celluloid Closet, which I'd definitely recommend to anyone interested in the history of Hollywood and portrayal of LGBT characters and themes. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "1996 marks the only...." - to avoid starting a sentence with a number, which probably isn't 100% a no-no but (IMO) doesn't look great, how about changing this to something "The award has been shared on [N] occasions; it was given to two documentaries in [year] and [year] and three in 1996, when [X], [Y] and [Z] were all recognized"
  • "within two years after completion" => "within two years on completion"
  • "The Real World winning for its third season The Real World: San Francisco in 1995, while True Life won for the episode "I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married" in 2005" => "The Real World won for its third season The Real World: San Francisco in 1995, while True Life won for the episode "I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married" in 2005" (not grammatically correct as it stands. If you don't want to repeat "won", maybe replace one with "was recognized")
  • Wow, being British it feels really unnatural repeatedly typing "recognized" :-D
  • Honestly, it's of the spelling differences in English where I actually prefer the American version over the British one. :P

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • The contrast between the green backgrounds and blue links is insufficient for accessibility purposes in Vector 2022 per this website (using #3366CC for the text and #9F9 for the background) – see MOS:COLOR. It was fine in Vector 2010, but the new link colors don't work.
    • The navboxes at the bottom have similar issues, and I suspect the other FLs you've worked on in this field have the same issue now.
  • @RunningTiger123: I'm not that experienced with this colour thing. Should I change the green colour to something like #EEDD82 or #FAEB86? The former colour is used in the Oscar, Emmy, and Annie Award articles, including their nav boxes. Other awards like the Hugos or Gaylactic Spectrum Awards use that blue colour. Which one do you recommend I use for here? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I realized after I started that the new link colors are causing the same issue elsewhere (see discussion), so for now, I would just leave it alone until a wider solution can be reached. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done.
  • It might be useful to insert rows for 1991 and 1993 to make it clearer when no awards were presented.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like the only remaining change is the 1991 and 1993 rows, which isn't critical, so I'll support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Role (campaign two)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Role has become a big cultural phenomenon, the channel is among the highest earners on Twitch, and the show has propelled the actual play genre forward. I'm nominating this article specifically because it is a nearly complete work (ex: it has plot summaries for its 141 episodes unlike other Critical Role episode lists) with work done by multiple editors. I've just finished addressing points of improvement raised during a Guild of Copy Editors review. This is my first time nominating an article & I look forward to your reviews! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in South Korea[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Korea has 15 World Heritage Sites, among them there are several temples, palaces, castles, as well as natural features. Standard style for WHS lists. The other nomination currently open, the list for Malaysia, is already seeing some support, so I am adding a new one. Tone 17:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "It was burned down during the Japanese invasion in the 16th century, soon after reconstructed" => "It was burned down during the Japanese invasion in the 16th century, but reconstructed soon afterwards"
  • "The fortress has remained largely intact to present day" => "The fortress has remained largely intact to the present day"
  • "The excavations of the tombs produces rich gold" => "The excavation of the tombs produced rich gold"
  • "It contains a lake-filled crater, waterfalls, and exhibits" => "It contains a lake-filled crater and waterfalls, and exhibits"
  • "The ancestor worship rituals were held regularly" => "Ancestor worship rituals were held regularly"
  • "The setting of the villages in the mountainous setting" - can we avoid saying "setting" twice? Suggest replacing the second one with "location"
  • "Over 400 kilns have operated in the area, some of them have been preserved" => "Over 400 kilns have operated in the area, some of which have been preserved"
  • "It is important stop" => "It is an important stop"
  • "Even if they shared similar culture" => "Although they shared similar culture"
  • "Even if it fell into disrepair" => "Although it fell into disrepair" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks for checking! Tone 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1961[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my 20th nomination of a yearly number ones list from what is now Billboard's R&B/hip-hop chart. In this year we see the start of a revolution in black American music, as for the first time the Motown label really makes its presence felt..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "African American-oriented": I'd rather get poked in the eye than make a big deal out of hyphens, but I'm probably supposed to say here that some people like "African-American-oriented", some prefer an en-dash in there somewhere, and some prefer to reword.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of basal asterid families[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who are intelligent and interested in the material, but lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject, without sacrificing accuracy, dumbing the subject down or talking down to people. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. We'll see. Thanks as (almost) always to Johnboddie for selecting the images and doing some of the work on "description and uses". - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise, this is the last time I'm pinging everyone who's commented in reviewed any of the previous lists in this series (except Aza, ChrisTheDude, Giants and PresN): @AryKun, CaptainEek, Casliber, Ceoil, Eewilson, HAL333, RunningTiger123, The ed17, and Umimmak: Thanks all for your reviews. Now that you folks have helped me work out the bugs in this list series, it shouldn't be too hard for me to keep getting reviews (it usually works to review other people's stuff at FLC), but I don't want to invite people to review until they've got two nominations to look at, and per FLC rules, I need one more support on this one before I can nominate the next one, if anyone's got some time to spare. (The four lists that have been promoted so far are linked in the "See also" section of this list, if that helps.) Any drive-by comments are also welcome, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that was fast, thx Ceoil. FWIW, everyone, two of the next three lists in the series (basal eudicots and Saxifragales) are going to be very short, 15 and 16 rows, if anyone wants to take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an image review[edit]

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Actinidia, I'm verifying here that I've checked everything. Licensing:

  • 45 are "own work" or equivalent with no indication at all that they aren't. 6 licenses were verified by the Flickr bot and 4 by the iNaturalist bot.
  • The two illustrations are very old; no copyright problems.
  • Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is (now) always present, and spare but acceptable.
  • Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have enough earned trust that this is fine. Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other reviews[edit]

Ceoil[edit]

Always happy to be pinged for these noms.

  • don't like that we start with "since 2019" rather than a general definition. Its pacey, but sort of off-centering. That said, you prob know your target audience and their dept of knowledge better than me.
  • related....find the "Glossary" very helpful
  • The basal asterids are highly diverse, but there are a few visible traits that can be linked to many of the families - "The basal asterids are highly diverse, but do not have many visible traits linking the families"?
  • I would punctuate a lot more in the list itself, eg at the end of Mushroom-like parasites without chlorophyll that feed on tree roots should have a full stop/period.
  • Some of the paired images are out of sync...eg when one is landscape and one is portrait and thus much longer.
  • Leaning support Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Great ideas. All done except the final full stops/periods ... I don't have a preference, you can add or subtract, whatever looks right to you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, was watching (& since added a few full stops). Support; another visually stunning and informative page from the series. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very kind, and John says thanks too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ye make a great team. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth (Eewilson)[edit]

Minor thing:

  • ...ring-like nectaries, and cymes, inflorescences in which each lateral stalk either terminates in a flower or branches itself. That last part, where it expands on the meaning of cymes, is a bit confusing because it almost looks like another item in the list. Maybe adding "which are" right before "inflorescences"?

That's all. There could be other things, but I'll leave them to others if there are. Being on a mostly-Wikibreak right now makes my eyes gloss over. :) Great job! Support, with that clarification.Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Wikibreaks are important, but I'm always happy for your input :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Staking out a spot for when I can review tomorrow. ~ HAL333 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of afrosoricids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a break for some other lists for a few months, the animals are back! Here is number 23 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (10 lists for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 3 lists for Lagomorpha, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, Scandentia, and Macroscelidea). We continue on through the last few of the single-list orders with one for Afrosoricida, a group of insect-eating shrew-y, mole-y mammals in sub-Saharan Africa, plus the tenrecs of Madagascar. They actually used to be in one big order with the shrews and moles, actually, but in the late 90s genetic research started to be a thing, so it got split off as they were less similar than they looked. Unfortunately, a lot of these afrosoricids don't have pictures (a common problem with small animals that hide in remote forests), but some of the ones we do have are pretty neat- the giant golden mole from the lead images has no eyes, while the lowland streaked tenrec down near the bottom is bright yellow and black and looks like it got an electric shock. The science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs, so hopefully it should be all good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comment, but the absence or presence of parentheses around an author citation is semantically important -- you have no parentheses across the board when in some cases it is meaningfully incorrect to not have them, so double check all of those. Umimmak (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Umimmak: Huh. You know, in the 3.5 years I've been doing this no one has ever mentioned that? I went looking and figured out what you meant (what it says in author citation (zoology), right?). As far as I can tell there's no guidance whatsoever in the MOS about this and Wikipedia articles are inconsistent in the article bodies, though the infoboxes do have it. The IUCN doesn't list author citations at all, but ASM does seem to actually follow this, so I've gone ahead and adjusted the templates to support it and then filled it in for this list; I guess I'll be going back and adjusting prior lists as well to match. --PresN 17:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Also a minor thing but I think you should be specifically citing Bronner & Jenkins since they actually are the authors of the chapter; yes Wilson (& Reeder why is she not mentioned?) edited the volume, but Bronner & Jenkins are who are directly responsible for the information you're citing. See {{MSW3 Afrosoricida}} for how this chapter is standardly cited on Wikipedia. Ditto for Mammals of Africa, you're specifically citing chapters written by G.N.Bronner but he isn't in your citation at all, just the editors of the book. Maybe this falls under WP:CITEVAR, though? Umimmak (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Umimmak: Fixed, thanks! The actual reason for the problems with the MSW cite are that I don't really use it directly for these lists, I use an online text copy of just the hierarchy as input to a program that generates the tables and then find what pages in the book would correspond with that, so I didn't catch that the sections had authors beyond the editors. (No excuse for not including Reeder, though, I must have copied the citation originally from an article that didn't have her on it). Mammals of Africa, on the other hand, I ran out of free google books pages, so I didn't see that the chapter had a separate author. Now fixed- CITEVAR probably covers it, but I do think it's important to cite the correct people. --PresN 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you send me a WikiMail I can just send you the relevant chapters from Mammals of Africa? Umimmak (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "They range in size from the least shrew tenrec, at 4 cm (2 in) plus a 6 cm (2 in) tail" - I guess this is a rounding issue (the two different metric values converting to an identical imperial value)......?
  • "the exact number and categorization is not fixed" - should that be "the exact number and categorization are not fixed" (plural subject)?
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Yeah, 4cm = 1.57in, and 6cm = 2.36in, so they both round to 2 inches. Fixed the is/are thing; I think both are technically fine, but are sounds a bit better. --PresN 16:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Don't really follow the block of text above about referencing but I am sure you will resolve it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Agreed with Chris on the above.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine. I haven't checked the maps; those are usually fine. The file description of File:Eremitalpa granti.jpg says that the image quality isn't the best, but the quality seems more than acceptable for these purposes.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilverTiger[edit]

Disclaimer: I haven't done this before and hardly know what I'm doing.

  • 1. The writing is professional. I went over it with a fine-toothed comb and had no complaints.
  • 2. The lede is well-written and informative. The scope is thankfully clear.
  • 3. It is comprehensive, well-sourced to reliable sources, and definitely worthy of being a stand-alone list.
  • 4. The structure is easily understood and navigated.
    • My only issue is that in the second section, the cladogram is being pushed below the list, creating a massive area of whitespace. Could that be adjusted so the two show up side-by-side?
  • 5. The lack of pictures is disappointing, but as was said, small mammals that live in forests aren't exactly frequently photographed. The maps are helpful, and the visual arrangements of the tables are an aid to navigation.
  • 6. Stable: very stable.
  • Did a spot check of sources - no issues there.

Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @SilverTiger12: Fixed the whitespace, I think? Looks like the new vector2022 skin allows for less space than the old one. --PresN 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm using the old skin, not Vector2022, but it is fixed anyway. Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of British armies in World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list has been overhauled to provide a complete list of all British armies raised (real and fictional) that were formed during the Second World War. A member of the Guild of Copyeditors has also given the list the once over.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Link Battle of the Bulge
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The articles on the Third Army and Fifth Army don't cover these imaginary army at all - should they even be linked?
    Personally, I think so. Prior to the list being overhauled, only the Fourth Army was included and I would guess that was because its deception efforts were best known. The others are kind of sidenotes in the literature. I have added a small note to both articles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Half way down the page, the notes column changes from centre-aligned to left and then back again
    I have left aligned this entire column now. If you think it should be centred, I can do that too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Imperial War Museum wrote the insignia" => "The Imperial War Museum wrote that the insignia"
  • "The museum noted versions of this initial design exist" => "The museum noted that versions of this initial design exist"
  • "It was intended the Fourteenth Army would" => "It was intended that the Fourteenth Army would"
  • "See below list for complete breakdown." looks weird below the list in question. I would be tempted to just lose these words.
  • "as each division completed its [singular] training and were [plural] fully equipped"
  • "It was envisioned the final territorial division" => "It was envisioned that the final territorial division"
    I have made changes to hopefully address the above various points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your time, review, and comments. I have attempted to address all and welcome any further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of the Warren G. Harding presidency[edit]

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last spring, I read thousands of archived newspaper stories, searching for every major story about President Warren G. Harding. I was an inexperienced user at the time, so I was wary of the FLC process. I've now ensured that all items are cited and that the timeline has a suitable lead. I believe that the timeline accurately lists all major events involving the presidency of Warren G. Harding, and I'm nominating this as my first FLC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool list, great work! At least the short presidency made this more manageable! Some comments:

  • The first sentence is a little awkward by making "presidency" the subject, I'd suggest something like "Warren G. Harding was inaugurated as the 29th president of the United States on March 4, 1921, and he died on August 2, 1923, 881 days later. During Harding's presidency, he organized..."
  • Even though presidents didn't travel much yet, it's not that particular that a president would meet with international figures - that listing doesn't need to be in the first paragraph
  • "He declined to participate actively in the 1922 United States elections, opting to write letters of endorsement" Don't know that history of midterms, but was that unusual not to campaign in them?
  • June 30 1921 - is an appropriations act that major? Before congress became dysfunctional, they signed like 12 of those every year, link unlikely to have an article
  • September 20 - redlink is not needed
  • Nov 14 - I don't think the Victory Memorial mentioned in the cite is actually related to National World War I Memorial (Washington, D.C.); that article and [1] say there were buildings there until demolished in 1930
  • June 21 1922 – lowercase is inconsistent with May 15
  • Feb 27 and 28, 1923 both include Hubert Work and Harry New
  • June 20 - italics for newspaper
  • Aug 2 - should say where he died

Reywas92Talk 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All comments have now been addressed. And yes, starting with Harding over the other presidencies of that era was completely intentional. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Will do a full review later, but for now will leave you with this drive-by: image captions which are not complete sentences, eg "Harding with Marie Curie. May 20, 1921." should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "Warren G. Harding was inaugurated as the 29th president of the United States on March 4, 1921, and he served as president until his death" - minor, but the word "he" is probably redundant
  • Could you add a few words to give context to some of the other people mentioned, eg "Harding attends the funeral of Edward Douglass White" => "Harding attends the funeral of Supreme Court judge Edward Douglass White" (or whatever is appropriate)
  • "Harding loosens a Wilson-era rule" - who's Wilson?
  • "France's insistence of maintain" - not grammatically correct. Suggest "France's insistence on maintaining"
  • "The Wall Street Journal breaks the story that Secretary of the Interior had leased" => "The Wall Street Journal breaks the story that the Secretary of the Interior had leased"
  • "for the 100th centennial" - the 100th centennial would mark 10,000 years and I am fairly sure Grant didn't live that long :-) Either "the centennial" or "the 100th birthday"
  • That's what I got as far as the end of May 1922, but I need to drop off now. I'll do the rest later this evening...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even more comments[edit]

  • "Harding expresses his support for cabinet secretaries to express" - any way to change one of the two verbs to avoid repetition?
  • "The Senate votes to give Harding authority over flexible tariffs rates" => "The Senate votes to give Harding authority over flexible tariff rates"
  • "Harding meets with veteran's organization leaders" => "Harding meets with veterans' organization leaders" (more than one veteran in each organisation)
  • "Harding meets with Former Prime Minister of France" => "Harding meets with former Prime Minister of France" (there isn't an official position of "Former Prime Minister of France")
  • Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe I've addressed all of your comments, including context for all names where it's not evident who they are from context. (And for what it's worth, I've never seen a source that says Grant isn't an ethereal being from the dawn of civilization.) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of LGBT Olympians and Paralympians[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is now one of the largest lists by size on Wikipedia. I suppose it's really a few lists that add up to one subject. I have put a lot of work into it this year, basing the appearance on a comparable list I found at the Hebrew Wikipedia, taking some poor bullet lists from related articles, and altogether adding the hundreds of missing entries for completion. I nominate it as a candidate for FL because I think it is quite a neat complete work - though, more on that - and for advice on further improvements, of course. Given its size, I sure am expecting some! I am currently in the process of migrating its many references to a more user-readable harvref format, since there are also hundreds of those. The only concern I have to it becoming FL is that it is a dynamic list; former Olympians can come out at any time, and there are more predictable periods in the run-up to Games when already-out athletes are announced to be competing. However, we have other dynamic lists at FL, and while they may be less prone to change, I think the somewhat predictability here makes it manageable. Happy to answer any questions, and thanks for looking it over! Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical considerations[edit]

Before getting too far into this nomination, I want to note that this page is really long. Right now, the post-expand include size is 1790806/2097152 bytes, or about 85.4% of the maximum page size (2 MiB per WP:LENGTH). I think it would be prudent to consider either splitting the page or reducing the page size – otherwise, there will likely be serious technical issues within a few years. (Removing images from the table might help, though I don't know how much the HTML code to display the images actually contributes.) I'm open to suggestions here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I second this. This is a great list, and the pictures and notes are instrumental to it, despite making up so much of the length - a list of names alone wouldn't be as interesting. But the fact is that the athletes added for the 2020 and 2022 games alone are 20% of the incredibly long list, which means we can safely assume another massive addition for the 2024 games. As RunningTiger123 notes, it's already 85% of the way to the point where the page will literally stop rendering partway through- as in it will just cut off in the middle of the table and not display anything further down. This means that, very likely, in 1.5 years the page will be unreadable by anyone, and it's frankly already unreadable for anyone who is on a slower internet connection, which is a good chunk of the reading populace. It's nice to have it all in one page, but this is, unfortunately, a problem that a lot of longer lists like this face, which then reach the same unfortunate conclusion: you have to break it up into sublists. I'd recommend breaking it up into at least 3 or 4 lists by year of Olympic debut, though alphabetically is also sometimes done. It's up to you, but something has to be done, I'm afraid. --PresN 03:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123 and PresN: Thank you both, these are exactly the kind of comments I was hoping for on that side - as well as table accessibility notes (which would presumably make the code longer if not up to scratch). As for resolving it, the longer notes take up quite a bit, even the shorter notes get long with references; the images are around 100 characters per entry, which is a lot with this many, but not as much as the notes. I think I agree that splitting is the better solution; the LGBT issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games article (which needs work, but) has some rough historical periods - would these be beneficial to breaking it up?. Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thought for splits: Summer athletes, Summer artists, intersex athletes, Winter athletes, and Paralympians getting lists at separate articles. The Summer athletes at least could do with splits, too, I fear. Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a technical guy, like, at all, but my lists all have a lot of images ... and I don't know if they've done something in the last two years to fix the problem, but a few reviewers were telling me that some of the images stopped loading for them when I got up to roughly 100 images. You have a lot of SVG pictograms on top of a lot of photos, too ... I don't know if that's a problem, but it might be. Personally, I haven't had the problem of images not loading for my own lists, so I can't test the problem I'm talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think splitting by type of athlete is fine, but I agree that the same issue will still arise with summer athletes. If I had to pick a non-arbitrary cutoff, maybe start a new list from 2004 onwards, as transgender athletes were first allowed to compete at those games? I could also see the list being split from 2020 onwards since those were described as the "Rainbow Olympics", though I think it's probably too soon to determine if that's a meaningful nickname that will stand the test of time. I would also be fine with a somewhat arbitrary cutoff from 2000 onwards (i.e., pre-21st century in the first list), or really at any point in the last 20 years. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ideas - I think 2004 is a good suggestion. I'll probably start with 2004-present to see how long the resulting lists are, in case the pre-2004 needs to be split further. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kingsif: Okay, since you're splitting this, would you prefer to close this nomination, or do you think you'll have a nominate-able chunk that can take the whole list's place in short order? Up to you. Since you asked, I'll give you an accessibility review for this list in a second in any case. --PresN 04:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the accessibility review, and the input so far. I think that splitting this means splitting everything out and, maybe (and which I've prepared for), leaving a boring old plain text list at the List of LGBT Olympians and Paralympians article/title (essentially to serve as a hub and to preserve history) - I think I will leave this open because a variety of cut-pastes and scraping the names shouldn't take too long. The process can then decide if the plain list is suitable, right? And I'm sure the process will come up with suggestions to, I suppose, "highlight" some of the more prominent athletes of each type. Of course, I trust your judgment on if this nomination should be closed and, perhaps, one of the split articles to be nominated once all cleaned up. Kingsif (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current list at the title of this nomination should be suitable now, to begin review. There are only the summary tables now present at this list, and I think I have made these accessible with this edit. Thanks again for this. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RunningTiger123: For future reference, how are you able to see the post-expand size? ~ HAL333 20:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HAL333: You have to open the page source and scroll to the bottom of the HTML code; close to the bottom, there's a comment with various page stats. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, got it. Thanks, ~ HAL333 23:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Unless otherwise specified, these apply to both the main table as well as the summary ones in {{LGBT Olympians overview}}
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. You have captions for the tables at LGBT Olympians overview, but not the main one.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Country becomes !scope=col | Country. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Robert de Montesquiou]] becomes !scope=row | [[Robert de Montesquiou]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Note that the "primary" column of cells doesn't have to be the first column, but it usually makes more sense for it to be so. Right now, you have the name and picture as two separate columns, with a grouped header cell and some sorting magic so that readers can sort by the picture column and actually sort by the name, but it may be cleaner overall to just have the first column be a combined "name <br/> picture", or else swap the name and picture columns. It is fine to leave the name column as the primary and the second column if you don't want to change it, though.
  • This would also fix a second issue: none of your images have alt text, which is needed for non- or poorly-sighted readers. It's fine to skip the alt text if you have a caption that explains what the picture is (e.g. the name of the person) in the same cell (or rather to have a generic "|alt=athlete" or something, since otherwise the alt is the image url which is a mess), but right now you don't have it in the same cell, so the images don't have explanatory text right alongside them as far as screen reader software is concerned, and would need an alt text of the person's name at minimum.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 04:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • What's actually sourcing the "by sport" table at the top? The other tables I can see summarise data already displayed in the big table so I guess fall under WP:CALC, but the level of detail in the "by sport" table isn't displayed in the big table. If I want to know who, say, the one intersex judoka is, how can I confirm that? Do I have to check the references against all the judo entries (none of the judo entries mention intersex in the notes column)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: For that particular one, the list of intersex Olympians just got split out. More generally, yes, it is looking through all the entries. When the list was much less formal, some of the entries had the person's sexuality/gender identity, and I think the list of LGBT sportspeople is still like that. The issue with having such a column has increasingly been people not labelling themselves, or having identities that don't neatly fit one word — and it's obviously not something we want to mislabel. Of course, as comes to gender identity and intersex people, this is a bit more cut and dry than with sexuality, so if you have ideas on how to incorporate the information in the tables, I would love to hear them. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kingsif, in the by country tables may I suggest that link point the relevant country at the Olympics article, or where is exist, the country at the Summer/Winter Olympics article rather than just the country article, eg. Argentina at the Olympics and Australia at the Winter Olympics. – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ianblair23: great suggestion, thanks! Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of commanders of the British 4th Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 4th Division was initially raised in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then formed again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured. This was previously nominated although the process stalled as I ended up on a wikibreak. Back in action and looking to finalize this one. The points raised in the previously nomination have hopefully all been addressed. Look forward to any feedback to whip this into shape as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Galbraith Lowry Cole sorts under L, suggesting that Lowry was part of his surname, yet in the notes column you refer to him as just Cole, suggesting that Lowry was in fact a forename. Which is correct?
    After taking a look at his article and family articles, it should just be Cole. I have updated so it should search correctly now.
  • "Lambton was incapacitated on 12 September 1917" - complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "Lipsett was killed in action on 14 October 1918" - and this one
  • "The division was reformed in England" - this one too :-)
    The above all addressed
  • "On 13 December 1934, Brind was temporary assigned" - temporarily, surely?
    Quite, and fixed.
  • "On 1 January 1978, the formation was redesignated as the 4th Armoured Division" - another note that needs a full stop
  • "The division was reformed in England" - this one likewise :-)
    Added for both
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • The first FLC for this was archived in May; I've checked the diff since then, and everything I said there still goes, so ...
  • Support. Please consider reviewing my FLC nomination, or if there's some issue that is getting in the way of that, please tell me what it is. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. I'm running a 102 degree fever at the moment ... you should have seen me trying to write correct regex, it was a hoot ... so if that question came across as pointed, please ignore it, that's not what I was feeling. I just wonder sometimes why I don't get more reviews than I get ... it may be something simple that I'm missing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. No worries about wording, and I am hoping you are feeling much better! Re: reviews, I use to try and do them but stopped many years ago as I never felt comfortable doing them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Malaysia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 10:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malaysia has four sites on the World Heritage Sites list and six on the tentative list. Standard style and formatting. The list for Sri Lanka is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Other sites date to different periods of Paleolithic and Neolithic" => "Other sites date to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods"
  • "dated to be about 10 000 years old" => "dated to be about 10,000 years old"
  • "Many animal and plan species" - is that a typo for "plant"?
  • "with over 2 400 patients at its peak" => "with over 2,400 patients at its peak"
  • "to live as close as normal as possible" => "to live as close to normal as possible"
  • "between 35 000 and 40 000 years old" => "between 35,000 and 40,000 years old"
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! Tone 21:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • The second lead paragraph seems a little sparse.
  • Should Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca be singular? (as it is in its own article)
  • The two sites listed in 2000 are natural, the other two are cultural Two independent clauses can't be linked with just a comma
  • at least one of the criteria --> "at least one criterion" (moreso a suggestion - it's up to you ofc)
  • the oldest most complete human skeleton I don't know what this means... Is it supposed to be "oldest and most complete" or "oldest mostly complete" or something else?
  • remains of continuous human occupation maybe change to "evidence of..." to avoid repetition of "remains"

That's all. ~ HAL333 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Tone 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 winners[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Indianapolis 500 is a 500 mile auto race held at the fabled Indianapolis Motor Speedway during the month of May and part of the informal Triple Crown of Motorsport. Many famous drivers such as Hélio Castroneves, A. J. Foyt, Rick Mears, Al Unser, Dario Franchitti, Mario Andretti, Johnny Rutherford, Juan Pablo Montoya, Bobby Unser and Jacques Villeneuve have been winners of this event. I look forward to all the comments on this review. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "reverting to International 500-Mile Sweepstakes Race from 1920 until 1980" - and since then.......?
  • "The American Automobile Association were the governing body" => "The American Automobile Association was the governing body"
  • "between its inception until 1955" => "from its inception until 1955"
  • "then United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997" => "then the United States Auto Club from 1956 to 1997"
  • "which sees a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face added to the base" - would probably be better as "and a bas-relief sculpture of the winning driver's face is added to the base of the trophy itself"
  • "The driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in victory lane each year since 1960" => "Since 1960 the driver receives a laurel wreath made of 33 ivory-colored Cymbidium orchids featuring burgundy tips and 33 miniature flags interwoven with blue, red and white ribbons in the victory lane"
  • In the key what's a rookie in this context? A driver in his first year of competitive racing? A driver driving in this particular race for the first time? Or something else?
    • A driver who is competing for the first time at the Indianapolis 500 EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "Indicates winning driver was a Indianapolis 500 rookie" should be "Indicates winning driver was an Indianapolis 500 rookie" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's probably too much detail for the lead to mention that the 2020 race was held in August due (I presume) to COVID, but it might merit a footnote
  • Note d is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose review from Airship — OPPOSE[edit]

  • "200 lap, 500 mi (800 km)" should be a separate sentence, to avoid number overload.
  • The lead doesn't specify when the inception of the event was.
  • "before becoming the 300-Mile Liberty Sweepstakes in 1919" I can't help but notice that the 1919 race in the table was contested over 500 miles? Is something wrong here?
  • "The American Automobile Association governed the event" the sentence would work better as passive clauses.
  • "is presented"--> "has been presented"
  • link some combination of "art deco sterling silver"; the "art deco" should definitely be capitalised
  • "the base of the trophy itself" make it clear that this is the original trophy; furthermore, they have only moved onto the base relatively recently.
  • "Since 1960, the driver receives...and drinks a bottle of milk, a tradition started after the 1936 event." This sentence is a mess: tenses, meaning, clarity is all lacking.
  • "from a prize pool" unnecessary
  • "a hand-made quilt from Jeanetta Holder at the winners' photo shoot the day following the race" ??? this convoluted sentence provides absolutely no clarification
  • "his last, a span of two decades. He won his" --> "his last, winning his"
  • "his last (to date)" MOS:RELTIME
  • "Juan Pablo Montoya had to wait the longest time between his maiden victory at the 2000 race, and his second win followed 15 years later at the 2015 event" between distinguishes two items; only one (the maiden victory) is provided.
  • "Troy Ruttman is the youngest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 22 years and 80 days old when he won the 1952 event. Al Unser is the oldest winner of the Indianapolis 500; he was 47 years and 360 days old when he won the 1987 race." Unnecessary repetition: can be combined into one sentence (e.g. "TR and AU are the youngest and oldest 500 winners, triumphing at the age of 22 years and 80 days and 47 years and 360 days respectively")
  • "It has been won by 52 American drivers in 74 editions of the race" --> "52 American drivers have won 74 editions of the race"
  • " followed by British and Brazilian racers who have each achieved victory eight times amongst five and four drivers, respectively." convoluted, please rephrase.
  • "There have been seven countries who have produced only one winner" --> "Seven countries have produced only one winner"
  • "There have been two editions, the 1924 and 1941 races, where two drivers sharing a car ..." --> "In the 1924 and 1941 races, two drivers sharing a car..."

The tables themselves look good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Regreful oppose on lead prose quality, thus violating criteria 1) and 2). Half a dozen issues remain from the first pass, and the first paragraph has only gotten more convoluted and stilted since then, with repetition and trivia taking up space useful information could use. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I have made more changes to the article but am not sure whether they are improvements or not EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have colscopes for a few of the cells (Laps through KPH), but not the rest- add !scope=col to the other header cells as well. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of birds of Wallis and Futuna[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Oceanian bird list, did this a while ago but nominating now. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The thing that's the hardest to get for my plant FLCs is the image review, so:
  • Image review: the correct licenses are present, and I can't find any reason to distrust them (which is kind of what image reviewing comes down to). Correct coding (including alt text) is present, and image quality is good. They do a good job of illustrating the list. Pass.
  • Please consider reviewing the very short List of Saxifragales families when it hits FLC (coming soon). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well ... I better not ask for help with a specific list because I don't know how fast things are going to move (if at all). If you're interested in reviewing any of these, keep an eye out for "List of ... families". - Dank (push to talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Continuing:
  • First: I'm really impressed. I think a lot of people don't understand how hard it is to condense biological descriptions this much, while still including critical details and the right amount of interesting details as well. Well done. Better than anything I could do, I think.
  • There's no requirement to put this stuff in a table; that's up to your discretion, and personally, I think what you've got works fine without a table. But be aware that people generally only review what they feel comfortable with, and I've found that FLC reviewers are generaly more comfortable with tables.
    • Most "List of birds by country" lists aren't in tables, since the checklist for birds for any country that isn't a small archipelago is hundreds of species and managing these in a table would be absolutely ridiculous. I guess the lists for the smaller countries could be changed to tables, but I'd like to maintain consistency across the lists.
  • "a unique mound or burrow nests": I'm sympathetic ... you don't want to devote a disproportionate amount of text to any one bird, and that can make it really difficult to make yourself understood. Having said that ... I didn't understand this at all, until I went to the article and saw "a unique strategy of egg incubation in which it relies on environmental heat sources". I think you need to say a little more here.
    • Added some detail.
  • "short thick but pointed bills": "short thick-but-pointed bills" would be better, but I think I prefer something like "short thick bills ending in a sharp point".
    • Reworded.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. My image review is above.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Australia One Day International cricket records[edit]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, it has been a little while but I am to glad to present this list to you for review. Similar to the Australia Test and the England Test cricket records lists, the one is on the middle child of game – One Day Internationals. As always I look forward to your feedback. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of UEFA European Championship winning managers[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the World Cup list gaining some support, I'm now nominating the equivalent list for the European Championships, the primary international tournament on the continent. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Since then, no manager has won the title on more than one occasion" - that kinda reads like Kachalin did win it more than once. Just say "No manager has won the title on more than one occasion"
  • "Schön, along with Vicente del Bosque, are the only managers" - not grammatically correct. Should be simply "Schön and Vicente del Bosque are the only managers"
  • "Joachim Löw, along with Lars Lagerbäck, holds the record" - this makes it sound like Low somehow has the primary claim to the record and Lagerback is secondary. Just say "Joachim Löw and Lars Lagerbäck jointly hold the record"
  • Image caption: "Helmut Schön of Germany (left) and Vicente del Bosque of Spain (middle) are the only two managers to have won the European Championships and the FIFA World Cup" - Championships has suddenly become plural whereas it's singular everywhere else
  • Also image caption: "Roberto Mancini of Italy (right), is the most recent manager to have won the tournament." - no reason for that comma
  • "and all winning managers have won it with their native countries, with the exception of German coach Otto Rehhagel leading Greece to victory in 2004" - the ref against the sentence does not confirm this. Similarly it's used as a source for the whole table but does not confirm the managers' nationalities
The source states, "Otto Rehhagel is the only coach to have won a EURO with a foreign team..." which I would consider confirming the above. I can try and find another source if it's still an issue. The source does provide the nationalities for the managers, it lists them next to the manager in the list of winning coaches. I've added another ref that confirms the teams they managed. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Presumably Slovakia is in the "by nationality" table because of Václav Ježek? But he was born in what is now Czech Republic, not Slovakia.
Article states he was born in Zloven and clicking through to that article it says it's in central Slovakia. I was a bit conflicted with how to represent this though. I think it's standard practice to list current countries in the by nationality table and the countries they represented at the time in the by year table. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi NapHit, please find my comments below:

Lead
Winning managers table
References
  • Ref 8 → The BBC Sport articles cites that Villalonga was the youngest manager to win the European Cup / Champions League but does not state that specifically mention that he the youngest manager win the European Championship.
That is referenced by ref 5 that precedes ref 8. I'm using the BBC link as it confirms he managed Spain during the tournament which I'm not sure the UEFA source explicitly states. NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Images
  • All images are free to use and have alt text. All good

Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments @Ianblair23:, I've addressed them all with the exception of the links for works as I was always under the impression whether they were linked or not was down to personal preference. Is there a specific guideline that says this needs to be done? NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Municipalities of Oaxaca[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a long pause, I'm continuing my goal to bring all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "more than any other state" - source?
  • Added the link to census which has a button to see the number of municipalities per state.
  • "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose" - don't get this bit. Does the constitution say this? That they can't function as intended? Huh?
    • This was added by Coyatoc who is more of an expert than I am, based on a spanish language text. I'm not sure if this user is still active but hopefully they will respond to this ping and provide a better answer than I can. They did try to explain it in the talk page. Mattximus (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It's the only entity" => "It is the only entity"
    • Done
  • "Merged with Miahuatlán in 1891-1942" - this would be better as "Merged with Miahuatlán from 1891 to 1942" (and same for all other such notes)
    • This is another wording issue from the original text, it is perhaps not known which date the merger took place but somewhere between those dates? Otherwise I don't know why the source includes a range, will as Coyatoc about this as well.
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • "more than any other state" in Mexico? Or globally?
    clarified
  • Why is the American date format used?
    • This is the format of all the other featured list pages, I assume it's because the majority of English reader would use it this way? It is by no means exclusively American. Mattximus (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "La Reforma" should sort with "R". Check the rest.
    • Having some troubles with the coding using data-sort-value="Reforma, La". Still working on a fix but if you know what syntax I got wrong please let me know! Mattximus (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 21:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Your work on lists of municipalities (shown on your userpage) is exemplary. I don't understand how this one got stalled ... let's un-stall it if we can.
  • Thanks!
  • "although they may not currently function as per their intended purpose": I don't know what that means. How do they function, then? If you'd rather not say how at this point, then it would be better to omit this phrase here, and bring it up at the point where you want to explain it.
  • This was added by Coyatoc who I'm certain can explain what this means however in their absence I will remove this phrase as I agree that it makes no sense without context.
  • "It is the only entity in Mexico with this particular organization.": I don't know that that means. It's the only one with this many districts? With tax districts? With autonomous districts? With any districts at all?
  • Clarified wording.
  • "According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants": One option: "The 2020 Mexican Census reported it as the tenth most populated state, with 4,132,148 inhabitants." "recorded" or "listed" are possible ... present tense is also acceptable, but wouldn't be my choice.
  • Changed wording to an active voice: "Oaxaca is the tenth most populated state with 4,132,148 inhabitants as of the 2020 Mexican census and the 5th largest by land area"
  • Agreed with Chris about the "merged with" wording in some of the notes ... there are options, but the current wording doesn't work, for instance in "Yutanduchi merged with San Pedro Teozacalco in 1937-1955". It's not clear what that's trying to say. "some time between 1937 and 1955" might work ... but perhaps that needs some explanation.
  • "tenth most ... 5th largest": Maybe there's a reason it's written this way, but I don't know why it's not "10th ... 5th" or "tenth ... fifth".
  • Easy fix. Both written out as per MOS.
  • "Municipalities in Oaxaca are administratively autonomous of the state according to the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico.[5] Every three years, citizens elect ...": Just a suggestion ... the rest of the paragraph is clearer than the first sentence (and perhaps easier to back up with sources, I don't know). If I were writing it, I'd probaby just drop most of the first sentence, and start with something like "As established by the 115th article of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico, citizens elect ... every three years ...".
    • I changed it to "have some administrative autonomy from the state". - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The largest municipality by population is Oaxaca City, with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is Santa Magdalena Jicotlán with 81 residents": Maybe "The census [you probably don't need "The 2020 census"] lists Oaxaca City as the largest municipality by population with 270,955 residents (6.55% of the state's total), while the smallest is". I think once you've established that this is what the census said, then it's not jarring to say "the smallest is" ... the readers will get what that means.
  • That's most of what I saw. Again, fine work, on this one and all the others. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When I try to edit the page, I get "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors". I generally like to support as early in the process as I can, but I can't support with a template error ... see if you can find it. (One way to find which one it is: copy the references into userspace, and then toss them out one by one until you don't get the warning.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, all of that looks good. I've just got a few more tweaks to make; I don't see any barrier to supporting now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm aware there's been some disagreement over the captions in the gallery; I have a proposed solution, but it was a little too complicated to talk about it, so I just made the edit. Feel free to change or revert it ... but I think, if you revert my edit, you're going to continue to get pushback from reviewers until there's some kind of change to make it less wordy. I think it would be a good idea to at least keep the images in their own section, as I did. After this edit, you probably don't need that "<onlyinclude>" code now, but I didn't remove it because I don't know what it's for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Btw, I don't recommend this, but I wouldn't be offended if you want to add back "fifth largest" or something to the fifth image caption. (Actually, I'm not offended by anything at FLC! It's just FLC.) But if the first caption says "largest" and the fifth caption says "fifth largest", there's no reason (that I can think of) to add "second largest" etc. to the other captions, and lots of reasons not to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking at the sort order in the second column, the only one that jumped out at me is Ixtepec, Oaxaca, with the official name "Ciudad Ixtepec". That should probably sort under "I" instead of "C".
  • The links I checked were all fine except for one: La Compañía is linking to a Chilean town. You might want to check some of the other links.
  • I checked List of cities in Mexico and a few other places to try to figure out how to sort, for instance, La Compañía ... so far, everything I'm seeing points to sorting this under "L". Works for me, but if I'm wrong, let me know.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review, and I'll check back after a source review is done). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. You might have comments on my current FLC nomination ... it's shorter than my other lists, and even drive-by comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude and HAL333: ... Mattximus and I have both done some work on this one, you might want to check back to see if these changes work for you. This one was stalled for a while, it looks like. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been a little bit, but I'm back with my fourth in this series of FLCs (following the 73rd, 72nd, and 59th ceremonies). It's very similar to those lists, but as always, any new feedback is appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Good to see you back here.
  • In 74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards#Ceremony information, "This year" (used twice) doesn't sound right to me, even though "the year I just mentioned" (i.e. "That year") is one of the possible meanings of the phrase, which would be fine. Paradoxically, if we were talking about the 2010 awards, "this year" would have no ambiguity at all. But when you're writing about the 2022 awards in 2022, I think some readers will take this to mean "the current year", which would probably be a MOS:CURRENT problem.
  • In the same section: "both were shifted" sounds fine ... that's an action someone took ... but "were now ineligible" would probably be better as "became ineligible".
  • I don't think the "Personalty rights warning" applies on the RuPaul image, as a photo of "an identifiable individual taken in a public place". If anyone disagrees, I'll look into it.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose checks out. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables. I believe table captions and proper coding were all present, but I got bored at some point so I might have missed some.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough. Support. Well done.
  • You might be interested in my current FLC nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Done (except for the image rights – I'm not an expert and I don't think it hurts to have it, so I'll leave it for now). Thanks for the feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The only thing I got is that I think "Any films placed on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences platform became ineligible for the Emmys. (Previously, this rule only applied to non-documentary films.)" should be "Any films placed on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences platform became ineligible for the Emmys (previously, this rule only applied to non-documentary films)." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Hot R&B Sides number ones of 1960[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With 1959 having gained some support, here's the list for 1960. No all-time greats gaining their first number one this year, just a near-50 year old harmonica player..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • What's with the italicized "(pictured in 19XX)". I haven't seen that before. Is that just an aesthetic choice?
  • I would recommend that you archive the urls, but the archiving bot hasn't been working for me lately, so no biggy.

Not much to complain about - I'll go ahead and support. ~ HAL333 01:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HAL333: - thanks for your review. Re: point 1, it's because the picture of Butler is the only one that isn't contemporaneous with the list of number ones, so it's to clarify that he wasn't a grey-haired old man in 1960..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I fixed one little punctuation snafu; otherwise I found nothing to fix. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Werner Herzog filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many will recognize Werner Herzog as the secondary villain from The Mandalorian, but he is much, much more. A prolific filmmaker, he is unlike any other. Watch him analyze a nihilistic penguin and observe firefighters in Kuwait as an alien visitor would. Or watch him get shot and barely react. Viewed by about 300,000 people yearly, this list and Herzog himself deserve featured-level quality. Cheers ~ HAL333 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I'm not experienced with image copyright issues, but I think at least an additional tag of some kind is needed for File:WERNER HERZOG star.jpg. Also, I can't tell for certain what's going on with the license for File:WernerAndGalen.jpg; has Lena Herzog contacted anyone about this image?
  • "The Wild Blue Yonder" should sort under "Wild".
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The list is well-sourced to apparently reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. Except as above, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • And just for you, I'll add number 7: you might or might not want to take a look at my current FLC. :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Dank: I removed both of the images and added one new one with a better license. Thanks for the comments. ~ HAL333 02:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Support. I see you put a lot of effort into this one, and it paid off. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. A great list, well-researched and well-written. I checked the formatting details and all looks fine. Excellent work! --Tone 09:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingsif[edit]

A nice looking list, my only comments are:

  • I think the refs could be improved. I'll take Letterboxd as a good source and that was my only concern there, but I mean in terms of the parameters. Could archive links be introduced; could wikilinks be introduced for the works (RogerEbert.com, Empire, etc.) as well as some authors (Roger Ebert, A. O. Scott, Peter Bradshaw at first glance, there's probably others); where it seems a film is being sourced to the work itself, I assume it is being sourced to an online directory, could this be made clearer?
  • Sorry, but I'll have to push back on all of these. I really dislike work and author links (except for books). Although they technically aren't, I regard them as duplicate links and of dubious help -- as a reader I never clicked on them. I don't really know what I can do for the sources with titles identical to the films. FLC reviewers were fine with them on all of my previous filmographies. However, I am a stickler for archiving refs but the archive bot isn't working for me.... which is very annoying. ~ HAL333 17:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have a separate "works cited" section, which is fine, I just wonder that due to the number of Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd citations, it might be simpler to just add the Herzog RT and Letterboxd filmographies to this section? I'd also like some clarity on what Prager is being generally cited for, or if it is just that one citation (at which point, for consistency in ref formatting, the "works cited" needs to go and the Prager ref needs to be made a citation like the rest).
  • I ended up just integrating the literary citation with the rest. ~ HAL333 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on the notes for the fiction short films table, would it be worth adding editor and sound columns, and checking them off like D/W/P?
  • Good point. Done.
  • The documentary short films table has the note "As himself" for Portrait Werner Herzog; this is presumably referring to his narration role? If so, can there be a note added for the other works marked as narration, as to whether he is narrating as himself or a character. If not referring to his narration role, there needs to be some better description - perhaps archive footage of Herzog is what you're referring to?
  • For the 2000 Years of Christianity entry, I think "of" should take the lowercase "o". Also, episode titles are typically in quotation marks and not italic. (i.e. "Christ and Demons in New Spain")
  • Done
  • Lowercase "e" for the "episodes" of the On Death Row entry
  • Done
  • Similar to the "As himself" comment above: the other work, film table has five actor entries with the note "As himself", and one "Cameo" - we must assume that the other 15 actor/narrator roles are not as himself and not cameos, but we should know what they are (character names? Should also get a character for the cameo, too) if possible
  • Ditto for the other work, television table - what are Herzog's characters for the four shows this goes unnoted. And are there any notes for Parks and Rec?
Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrfan Khan filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Twinkle1990 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is properly written and references are reliable and from reputed media. Twinkle1990 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Irrfan Khan (born Sahabzade Irfan Ali Khan; 7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020), also known simply as Irrfan" - the article is not about Khan himself so you don't need the bold formatting, his birth name, date of birth and date of death here.
  • "known for his works in Hindi cinema, as well as his works in British films and Hollywood" - too wordy. I would just say "his works in Hindi cinema, as well as British films and Hollywood".
  • "He made his screen debut with the Academy Award nominated film Salaam Bombay! (1988)" - "Academy Award-nominated"
  • "Followed by a series of roles in films that failed to propel his career forward, he received critical acclaim" - Khan wasn't followed by a series of roles but his work in Salaam Bombay!. Also, the critical acclaim part needs to be sourced.
  • "The successful drama Life in a... Metro (2007) marked a turning point in Khan's career" - why was it a turning point in his career when he gave several critically acclaimed performances before it? This one also needs to be sourced.
  • "He rose to prominence with his portrayal of Paan Singh Tomar" - unsourced again and I'm not sure if he rose to prominence with this film. He was already an established actor long before it.
  • "earned him universal acclaim by the critics and audiences" - unsourced

Oppose. I'm stopping here as this has too many issues. The lead is poorly written and filled with vague claims. And given the length of Khan's career, I would expect the lead to be longer than this. FrB.TG (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | ''[[Salaam Bombay!]]'' becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | ''[[Salaam Bombay!]]'' (on its own line, however, it can't be on the same line as the rest of the row). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball head coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kentucky has had 5 different coaches win national championships, the most of any college basketball program. I have improved this list to (hopefully) match the excellence of the coaches that have led Big Blue Nation. This article is modeled on List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, with a few improvements such as link fixes and the removal of defunct and/or minor coaching awards in an attempt to limit the page size. I look forward to any improvements you may have! Note: I have another FLC however said list has support already, all existing comments have been addressed and no new comments have been made in two months. Newtothisedit (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Probably should mention somewhere that the team relates to the University of Kentucky
  • "In 1921 they would join" - why not just "In 1921 they joined"
  • "11 years later" - always better not to start a sentence with a number written in digits if possible
  • " from the program's inaugural 1903–1904 season to the current year, 2022–23" - any reason why the formats of the two seasons are different?
  • "a retroactive national championships" - a (singular) championships (plural) doesn't sound right to me, unless it's an Americanism of which I am not aware......?
  • "Eklund is the teams all-time leader" => "Eklund is the team's all-time leader"
  • "he has had held" - grammar's a bit mangled here
  • Names of coaches in the table should sort based on surname, not forename
  • Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop (currently some have one but some don't)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved all comments--Newtothisedit (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • These apply to both the 'key' tables and the main one:
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | align="center" | {{nts|1}} becomes !scope=row align="center" | {{nts|1}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Something is messed up with the images on the side- for me there's the key tables with white space next to them, then the line of images with a huge white space on the left of them, then the table. At no resolution can I get the images to be next to either table.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe I have fixed all of the issues present Newtothisedit (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1979/1980[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured list in the hope that it will join its three predecessors with the status. The list itself is fairly straightforward (although its lower reaches are shrouded in mystery), and I've tried to summarise the near-farcial changes to rankings and seedings proposed and reverted by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. Thanks for all improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the WPBSA voted to seed only two players into the last 16" - seeding them "into" the last 16 makes it sound like they got a bye to that round, is that the case? If so, that isn't my understanding of what seeding usually means......
  • "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded the first round" - should that be "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded in the first round".....?
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've reworded, to hopefully make it clear that the players were exempted to certain rounds; let me know if it needs further work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • Before this, the defending champion was seeded first, and the previous year's runner-up second, for each tournament.[1][2][3 - maybe flip to "before this, for each tournament the defe..." As it reads a bit easier to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Players' performances in the previous three World Snooker Championships (1977, 1978 and 1979) - we've gone from speaking about 1977, we should prefix this para that we are talking about 79/80. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Potentially, but such an article would be close to a permastub. Seems to have been a fairly short-lived thing, which wasn't heard of after leading players got their way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hadn't really thought about it before, but to me a bye seems to be about a specific round, when there aren't enough players to fill all the slots. The Guardian source used has "the traditional eight exemptions ... revised the number of exemption to 16, number 1-8 to have byes and numbers 9-16 to meet eight qualifiers in the first round". I looked for other examples of "exemption", and found a few, e.g. "[Hallet was] exempted until the seventh qualifying round of the world championship" (The Guardian, 21 Jan 1997, p.22); "This year the top 16 'world ranked players, from an entry of 103, are exempted until the Sheffield stage" (The Daily Telegraph, 17 January 1985, p.33); "he succumbed to Rosa, whose world ranking of 119 exempted him to the ninth round" (The Independent, January 11, 1998). So I think I prefer to keep the current text, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prose
  • The table seems wierdly sorted - what makes certainly players higher than others for when they are the same points? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a mystery. It would seem logical to sort players on the same number of points based on their most recent performances, but this doesn't look to be the case for the ordering of Spencer and Thorburn, for example. No further details in sources as far as I'm aware. (In later years, of course, it got much more complicated, with merit points, half-points, A points, and frames won taken into account.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do we have a player who didn't play in any of the three events (in 24 and 26)? Also, why are they above players who did take part? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's a mystery. Snooker Scene only listed players with points, so I have no idea where Turner would have got the details for lower places from. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • this has been the case for earlier season articles, following a comment that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." at the 1976/1977 discussion - or is the issue that I've placed it oddly in a different way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2015)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am renominating this article after the previous nomination was archived as there was only one user that supported the nomination. All issues found in the previous nomination were fixed. I hope this gets nominated this time. Thanks. -- EN-Jungwon 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I was the one editor who supported before and see no reason not to do so again..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sebbirrr

  • "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Soribada." → "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, and Soribada."
  • "Of all releases for the year Exo's" → "Of all releases for the year, Exo's"
  • "The group had four number one singles on the chart in 2015 achieved with "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)", "Call Me Baby", "Love Me Right" and "Sing for You"" → "The group had four number one singles on the chart in 2015: "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)", "Call Me Baby", "Love Me Right" and "Sing for You""

That's all from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sebbirrrr all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EN-Jungwon: Support - great work! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Chompy Ace

No issues. Great work! Also, if you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by Guardians of the Galaxy (film) regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 01:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Source review – Although I can't read in Korean, source reliability seems okay from what I can tell, the formatting is up to scratch, and the link-checker tool shows no concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine[edit]

Nominator(s): Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Food and drink.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I haven't the time to do a full review at the moment, but I was struck by the title, and had a couple of questions. First, would it not be more usual to take this to FLC? Second, what is the precise geographical scope here? Your lead links to Land of Israel and Palestine (region), which are distinct and also not precisely defined. Is the scope a specific administrative unit? Or a biologically coherent region? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, The Land of Israel (broadly construed) is the exact same geographical region known as Palestine (region). The use of one term over the other has more to do with era, or time-frame, in which the country is mentioned. The scope of the country stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, that is to say, width-wise. Lengthwise, it stretches from Upper Galilee and the Golan to the Negev. We're not talking here about modern political boundaries, but rather of an ancient, geographically-known area, straddling between Syria and Lebanon in the north, to Egypt in the south. Another reason why we mention both names (Palestine / Israel) is because an author writing during Ottoman control over Palestine in the early 1900s, and who describes the edible plants of the country, does so by calling the country Palestine. Other authors of the 21st century who describe these edible plants will often refer to the country as Israel. Still, it is one and the same country.
Is there anyone here who wishes to review the page submitted to FLC?Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comments (semi-source review) from PanagiotisZois[edit]

Interesting article. Hopefully I'll have more time to read through it in the near-future. I made a small change in one of your sources. To make the sourcing easier, I recommend you do the same thing with all your sources using this "template": [1]. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I have to ask. Is there a specific reason as to why the Arabic names of these edible plants are present? And alongside that, why is it Arabic and not Hebrew? I'm not implying that it should use the Hebrew names rather than the Arabic ones, but if you're going to include one, it'd make sense to also include the other. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The simple reason why we have used the Arabic names instead of the Hebrew names is because the Arabic names used for most of these plants are names that have been used for hundreds of years, in most places, whereas the Hebrew names, for the most part, are only Modern Hebrew names invented by botanists in the last 70 years or so. In fact, the Old Hebrew names used for most of these plants are no longer known, as we have no ancient recorded history for the names of the vast majority of these plants (save for the common plants named in the Hebrew Bible and in the Mishnah, such as for barley, lettuce, asparagus, wild cress, etc.). Another reason is because the Arabic names have actually been used by Israeli botanists to help identify certain plants merely described in ancient Jewish writings, since Arabic is a cognate language of Hebrew. That is to say, medieval Jewish commentators often will write the Arabic name when explaining to their readers the identification of a certain plant mentioned in 2nd-century Hebrew manuscripts, and which modern-day botanists quickly make note of. A third reason is because all the Hebrew sources cited in this article mention the Arabic names for these plants, alongside their Modern Hebrew name. A fourth reason is because the other non-Jewish sources used in this article, particularly Gustaf Dalman who investigated these plants in Palestine, only mention their Arabic names.Davidbena (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, that makes sense. I would make one recommendation; given the inclusion of the Arabic names, there should be a separate column just for them. Probably between the "Common name" and "Observations" columns, because the way the Arabic names are placed within a parenthesis in the "Observations" section look a bit off. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what an extra column will add to making the sense more legible, as the current format puts the Arabic name in parentheses, preceded by the word "Arabic" for its Arabic name.Davidbena (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments about the use of the slash[edit]

I have opened an RM because of concerns that this article, including its title, fails MOS:/. Israel / Palestine is ambiguous and most likely means Israel and Palestine. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 16:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By a consensus, the article's name has already been changed to: "Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine." @Vanamonde93:, if you can find the time to make a complete review of the page and suggest ways to improve the article, I will do my best to comply to your suggestions.Davidbena (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Species becomes !scope=col | Species. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | ''[[Aizoon canariense]]'' becomes !scope=row | ''[[Aizoon canariense]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN:, Thanks. I will try and work on all these improvements at the first available opportunity. At my first try, I was unsuccessful in using that template. I must be doing something wrong, so I will just read the instructions in MOS:DTAB. If I should have any questions, I'll get back to you.Davidbena (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN: I read the MOS:DTAB instructions and, while it made matters a little easier for me to understand, I am still not 100% certain that I am doing things correctly. Meanwhile, to the best of my ability, I have used the prescribed format for the first 23 entries in the list of "Herbs, grasses, fungi and shrubs." I'd appreciate it if you could just check for a moment to see that I'm doing things correctly before I should proceed further on, and if I should be doing something differently, how I should proceed. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Made an edit to those 23, which hopefully makes sense; let me know if it doesn't. --PresN 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it does, and I have followed your lead and completed all the rest, including those listed under the heading "Trees". If there is something else that needs to be done, please inform me.Davidbena (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With more Lebanese living outside of Lebanon than inside, the national football team has reflected this statistic by increasingly using more foreign-born players in their roster. From the Armenian diaspora to today, I managed to gather quite a bit of interesing information. Nehme1499 00:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Country of birth [...] becomes !scope=col | Country of birth, with each header cell on its own wikitext line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{BRA}} becomes !scope=row |{{BRA}}, again with the header cells on their own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PresN: Thanks for the review, I think I've taken care of everything (dif). Nehme1499 20:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "At the 2000 AFC Asian Cup, the LFA naturalised" - I doubt they did this literally at the tournament
    • Changed to "In preparation for the 2000 AFC Asian Cup". Nehme1499 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "as of 2021, Lebanon is" - 2021 will soon be two years ago, so better to say "was"
  • "Armenian player Vardan Ghazaryan was the Lebanon national team's leading goalscorer" - full stop missing
  • "After Homenetmen and Homenmen were relegated to the lower divisions in the early 2000s, Armenian presence in the national team fell" => "After Homenetmen and Homenmen were relegated to the lower divisions in the early 2000s, he Armenian presence in the national team fell"
  • No need to link Lebanese diaspora twice in consecutive sentences
  • "This is a list of football players" - don't bold that last part
  • I think it would add to the article if the number of caps and goals was shown against each player, rather than it just being a list of names
    • I could do that, though how do you suggest formatting it? Nehme1499 16:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd suggest a fairly simple table of country > player name > caps > goals. Maybe date range of international career? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One final thing - now that the caps and goals figures have been added to the first table, the figure for Antar is different to both the second table and his image caption.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of English translations of the Divine Comedy[edit]

Nominator(s): The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has become one of the best translation-related lists on Wikipedia. It is as comprehensive as it can reasonably be, having been sourced from multiple high-quality bibliographies, and has a compelling lead section describing the history of the subject. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Published [...] becomes !scope=col | Published , with each header cell on its own wikitext line. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1782 becomes !scope=row | 1782, again with the header cells on their own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PresN Done! Feel free to review the source to make sure everything was done correctly The Midnite Wolf (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Umimmak[edit]

@The Midnite Wolf: This is my first set of comments on an FLC; I don't really have any experience with FLCs but I have some thoughts which might be useful.

  • What are your inclusion criteria? I see you include self-published and unpublished translations such as Urquhart (1895) -- are there other unpublished translations you've come across but decided not to include for a particular reason or is this truly meant to be exhaustive? Or is something included only if it was mentioned by Cunningham or one of the yearly bibliographies by the Dante Society of America's bibliography or the Società Dantesca Italiana.
  • I don't think I need to be told how to access the SDI's English page; to me it's more important that I can replicate your search to verify results. Presumably you just went to Dante Alighieri > Works > Commedia (Comedy) > Languages > American English and English, and what, just selected every book? I'm seeing this database also brings up a lot of scholarly articles about particular translations -- some more of these might be useful for annotations.
  • I think in general I'd like better in-line sourcing for each entry (not just individual annotations). If a reader goes to any line, I think, ideally, they would be able to tell what page of Cunningham you got it from, or which year's bibliography for the DSA, or if you used the SDI's database, or some other source.
  • Also regarding in-line citations, you have a few footnotes to entire books to support single statements; presumably a specific page is providing you that information, not the entire book.
  • This is about translations, I suppose, not individual volumes. But as a reader, I'd like to see more about the individual books. What's the ISBN for modern translations? Is it a bilingual edition (I know FSG's edition of Pinsky's translation is)? Is it a critical edition? Is there commentary? A bibliography? You sometimes mention reprints and republications, but not always. You mention the introduction in the reprint to Anderson translation -- why are no other introductions mentioned? So is your article about translations, or editions and publications of these translations, if that distinction makes sense.
  • In general what does a range of years mean for the published column mean? You're presumably just providing information about the first edition, no? (And since the column is "Published", you really should clarify in the cell for Urquhart.)
  • No titles for the translations? I realize there will be a lot of similar ones and it might duplicate "Parts translated" but it might be worth having the actual title (e.g., FSG's edition of Pinsky is The Inferno of Dante: A New Verse Translation)
  • In general take a second look at reference formatting:
    • You're inconsistent with how you deal with dates, both in formatting and level of specificity (e.g., Holekamp's dissertation is May 1985 but Zanobini's is 2016-10-26.)
    • There are some inaccuracies; Dante did not edit Barbarese's 2009 article for The Sewanee Review.
    • |url= in a citation template implies free access (without |url-access=subscription); and it's redundant with |jstor= or {{para|doi} or |hdl=
    • It seems you've automatically let the citation manager do it for you; sometimes the automatically generated title includes information better put in |website=, |department= or |date=.
    • ISBNs aren't consistently hyphenated.
    • What's your rationale for when you include ISSN and OCLC or not?
    • Use an en dash, not a hyphen for page ranges (and year ranges too for that matter.) (MOS:RANGE)
  • Why do you sometimes cite Cunningham's manuscript? Is this an ease-of-access thing or is there some information that did not make it to the final printed version? I sort of feel you shouldn't be citing a draft version unless there's very good reason for it...
  • See MOS:FLAGCRUFT, these translators are not representing their countries.

This isn't a source review and these aren't the most specific comments or thorough review I realize, and again I don't know anything about FLCs, but these were just some initial thoughts I had as to how to make this a quality list. Umimmak (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Umimmak I didn't make the list, but the inclusion criteria seems to follow Cunningham's. The criteria isn't that it was widely published but that it hasn't been lost. There's at least one available version of Urquhart. Looking back now, the citation in Cunningham's bibliography has "Privately printed" in place of a publisher, so the publisher column here should say that instead.
  • Close. Dante Alighieri > Works > Commedia (Comedy) > Editions > Complete work, as it's quicker to see whether or not a work is in English from the citation than whether or not it's complete (and the pdf it produces is 5 pages shorter). That said, I'll go through some of the scholarly articles from Languages > English. I can also add the shortcut to the citation.
  • Adding references for the entries taken from Cunningham is probably a good idea. It would take a bit of time but I'll get around to it soon. Which year's bibliography for entries from the DSA should be self evident from the year published, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good way to cite SDI's list.
  • I assume most of these are for Cunningham 1964. The lack of specific page numbers is because I'm relying on my university library's copy, so some of it was added from memory when I didn't have access. I'll check it out again and add page numbers when I have time (hopefully this week).
  • Agreed. I'll go through later (tomorrow ?) and add a ref. column with this information.
  • It's for writers who translated the Comedy in full but did the cantiche in separate years. For example, Ciardi's Inferno was published in 1954, but his Paradiso wasn't published until 1970. Wrt to Urquhart, "privately printed" fixes this.
  • I was experimenting last night with a potential fix for this and the above issue. It removes "nationality" to save space, but it adds location to the publisher column, which is arguably more informative anyway. Feedback welcome.
  • The rational for including ISSN's is whether or not the source seems to have one. To be completely honest I don't fully understand what they are, so feel free to add any that I may have missed. Other than that, all of these issues have now been fixed (I think)
  • Ease of access. My university library only has the second volume and I couldn't find first at my local bookstore. I also made a lot of edits over the summer when I didn't have access to either volume. From what I read, the final edition and the manuscript aren't too different, with the only exception being that the final edition has information from 1954–1966 and an a proper afterword
  • Done
Thanks so much for the thorough review!! Don't worry too much about not knowing the specific FLC criteria, most of it is common sense and seems intentionally somewhat vague. I saw that you posted an article in FLC as well, I'll try and review that sometime this week. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Many more translations of individual lines or cantos[ii] exist,[15] but these are too numerous for the scope of this list." You do include translations of parts of sections, so your criteria for inclusion in the list are unclear. They should be clearly spelled out.
  • I think it would be better to show full translations as "Full" rather than Comedy, which appears to put full and partial translations on the same level.
  • Sorting by nationality etc does not work.
  • In a sortable list, links should be repeated, not only the first use.
  • You should not have flags for just a few nationalities. I think flags are not needed, but if you have some you should have all.
  • You are inconsistent whether page numbers are shown in the refs. All should have page numbers if they are paginated works.
  • There is an error message on ref 23. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esmée Denters discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the discography of Esmée Denters, who came to prominence after posting song covers on YouTube. After working on this discography for a few months, I believe it is now up to FL standards. Looking forward to your comments! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "who signed her with his record label" => "who signed her to his record label"
  • "The song received a gold certification in New Zealand and a silver one in the United Kingdom" => "The song was certified gold in New Zealand and silver in the United Kingdom"
  • "She was also a featuring artist" => "She was also a featured artist"
  • "Under the mononym Esmée, 3 Beat Records released in the same year her single "It's Summer Because We Say So"" = > "In the same year, 3 Beat Records released her single "It's Summer Because We Say So", credited under the mononym Esmée"
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for reviewing! I believe I addressed everything. Sebbirrrr (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EN-Jungwon

Support. Found no major issues with the article. -- EN-Jungwon 13:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Microphones discography[edit]

Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am creating a good topic from the Microphones studio albums. The Microphones is a independent band, and has never charted, so the discography is a little different from most bands. They have many miscellaneous albums which I grouped into one category, since their attributes aren't mutually exclusive (e.g. there are some demo albums, and some compilation albums, but 2 compilation albums of demos. How do you split that into sub-sections). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The allmusic ratings are unnecessary as pretty much all featured lists of discographies don't have them, and a chart position column should be added if any of their albums have charted (even if it wasn't on the main Billboard 100 chart). Other than that, it looks good! The Midnite Wolf (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The Midnite Wolf: Hi! The reason I added the AllMusic ratings is because none of their albums have charted. Since AllMusic has rated their releases more than any publication by far, I thought it made sense to show them to the reader, since it provides extra context on how the albums were perceived. I'm willing to remove it, but I sort of want a better rationale than to be consistent with other articles: all subjects are different and so the content they require will naturally vary.
    I looked to see if the band has charted, and couldn't find anything. If anyone has any resources or advice for places to look that would be great. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

Resolved comments (Support from ChrisTheDude)
*While I appreciate that all numbers in the first sentence are written as digits so as to be written the same way, "Between 1996 to 1998, Elverum released 6 demos" - looks odd in isolation and could reasonably be changed
  • "The CD Tests released in June 1998 and was compiled" => either "The CD Tests was released in June 1998 and was compiled" or "The CD Tests, released in June 1998, was compiled" but not what is currently there
  • "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following" => "The band's first studio album, Don't Wake Me Up, was released on K Records in August 1999 and gave the band a small following"
  • "Two more 7-inches released in 1999" => "Two more 7-inches were released in 1999"
  • "The extended play Window: released in February 2000" => "The extended play Window: was released in February 2000"
  • "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water released on K" => "In September 2000, the studio album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water was released on K"
  • "The Glow Pt. 2 released on K in September 2001" => "The Glow Pt. 2 was released on K in September 2001" (I sense a pattern emerging here :-))
  • "Two 7-inches released in 2001" => "Two 7-inches were released in 2001"
  • "The limited-copy album Little Bird Flies Into A Big Black Cloud was released in September 2002, and the single compilation album Song Islands was released in August" - August of which year? If it was 2002, why is it mentioned after an album which came out later in the year?
  • "Foghorn Tape released in March 2021" => "Foghorn Tape was released in March 2021"
  • "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 released" => "In February 2022, Completely Everything, 1996 - 2021 was released"
  • Two of the demos were apparently released under totally different names - this should probably be mentioned in the lead (assuming they belong on the list at all.......?)
    • Yeah, it's tricky, since it was essentially the same musical project, but not really. They're such obscure releases that there's barely any mention in sources, and its all after the fact. Elverum re-released 5 of the demos on digital (not sure why he didn't do the X-Ray Means Woman one, since it definitely exists), implying that they belong to a set by the same artist. Also, Early Tapes, the compilation of demos by the Microphones includes a track from the Mostly Clouds and Trees release; it kind of just seems like a pseudonym. But I found a source I hadn't seen before X-Ray Means Woman and Mostly Clouds and Trees made way for Elverum to begin naming his project the Microphones after developing an interpersonal relationship with his recording equipment and a deep reward in putting songs to tape. (KEXP, 2020) implying that the 2 demos aren't part of the Microphones. I think I might just remove them, and leave a footnote somewhere. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now removed. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First of those two has no source to confirm its existence
  • Note such as "Compilation album of "singles and rarities"." which are not complete sentences so not need full stops
  • Song Islands is listed in the table after a later release
  • Notes a and c don't need full stops
  • Note b should write 2 as a word
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for the comments :). Sorry about the "was released" vs "released" thing, had a brain fart. All the above done except noted. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - never heard of this band/project before I reviewed the list, but off the back of the review I listened to Microphones in 2020 last night and enjoyed it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! That's awesome you checked out that album— it's a great album. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved comments (Stricken oppose from Indopug)

Oppose as the writer of multiple discography FLs, I have to oppose this on account of the inclusion of the allmusic ratings. It is not standard practice to do so, nor is it a substitute for the band failing to chart (it's fine to just list the releases without any chart positions). Further it encourages pointless discussions like "why Allmusic? Why not Pitchfork too?" etc.—indopug (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Indopug:
I will remove the ratings column if you want to oppose. I just want to present why I added them originally.
The ratings column gives the reader a bit of extra context, (for an artist with rather sparse information) and may give the reader a rough estimate of how the release was received (e.g. given AllMusic has rated the most The Microphones releases than any other publication, an unrated album can give the context that the album's release was not widely spread, e.g. Foghorn Tape)
I don't see why the use of ratings has to be consistent with other articles. Every article is different and has therefore has different best practices. There is nothing in the FL criteria or manual of style that backs up this desire for consistency.
The reason why AllMusic was included—and not, for example, pitchfork—was because it's the publication with the most comprehensive coverage of the discography. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indopug: Sorry for pinging twice, but do you have any response to this? Would you prefer if I remove the columns altogether? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to give readers a little extra context, why not include the allmusic review in the references? The ratings do not give additional context, they just give an arbitrary, subjective assessment expressed in numerical form. On the other hand, the lede and the Description column you already have does a much better job of explaining the band and its records to the reader.—indopug (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indopug: I think I have to agree, thanks for the arguments. I've removed the ratings, are you able to support the FLC now? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sebbirrrr[edit]

  • "Mount Eerie is a concept album that portrays a linear storyline." - I'm not sure this is relevant for the discography
    • I think briefly describing each album gives the reader extra context on the artist's career as a whole. I'm not open to removing this, because I wrote short descriptions for the other albums (e.g. "went on to become a cult classic and Elverum's most critically acclaimed album"). It's inconsistent to remove one but keep the others. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "has implied that the box set signifies the end of the Microphones" - is there a better way to word this? The source says: "implied that the box set marks the end of the Microphones"
  • The note about the labels is somewhat unnecessary; the readers could go to the album articles to find more about the release history
  • I don't think it's worth mentioning that none of their songs charted as it is obvious from the table itself
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the album titles should be italicized in the refs

That's all I have! I'd really appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my current FLC, which is also a discography! Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serie A Player of the Month[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 awards have been assigned as of 18 November 2022. It's acceptable that it isn't very big. Dr Salvus 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The winner is chosen by a combination of an online public vote" - a combination of this and what else? You can't have a combination of one thing.
Removed the "a combination of" I had mistakenly inserted.  Done
  • "contending five players" => "involving five players"

 Done

  • "The five players who take part to the pool" => "The five nominated players"

 Done

  • No reason for EA Sports to be in all capitals

 Done

  • Need a comma after Ronaldo to end the clause

 Done

  • "No player has won the award on two consecutive months" => "No player has won the award in two consecutive months"

 Done

  • "or in the same season" => "or twice in the same season"

 Done

  • "....the same season but Gómez and Ronaldo are the only players to win two trophies in one calendar year" => "...the same season; Gómez and Ronaldo are the only players to win two trophies in one calendar year"

 Done

  • "to win the reward on two consecutive months" => "to win the award in two consecutive months"

 Done

  • "Ten midfileders" - last word is spelt wrong

 Done

  • "the most rappresented" - last word is spelt wrong

 Done. I got confused with Italian word for represented.

  • I would just have a single column for month and year, as being able to sort by both month and year looks weird - why would you want to sort all the Septembers together?

 Done. Premier League Player of the Months too has this problem

  • "As of February 2022 award." - presume this is wrong? Also it doesn't need a full stop

 Done

Not done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "As of October 2022 award." (in two places) - doesn't need a full stop

 Done

Not done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need for a "see also" to Serie A as it is already linked in the article

 Done

  • Publisher of refs 1 and 3 is the same but you show it differently

 Done

  • Ref 2 gives no publisher info at all

 Done

  • Don't show title of ref 3 in all caps

 Done

In these moments, I am busy. I will do this as soon as possible. Dr Salvus 17:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have decided to sleep less to do this work. Dr Salvus 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. I had made the edits in question but I think I forgot to save them. Dr Salvus 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude anything??? Dr Salvus 16:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One point I missed above: what's the point of the note "Players marked dagger shared the award with another player." when as far as I can see this has never happened? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Dr Salvus 19:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude still nothing? Moise Kean got his November award yesterday, so I've changed something. Dr Salvus 16:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first column does not sort correctly. If I sort on any other column and then re-sort on the first one, the order becomes September 2019 > January 2020 > January 2021 > January 2022 > October 2019 > February 2020 etc, which makes no sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I've now looked at the refs and ref 4 does not source the columns where it is used. For example, if I click the magnifying glass on the Serie A site and type in "Frank Ribery" (which is not the correct spelling of his name, BTW), I get two articles: one about how he did the most dribbles on one matchday in November 2021 and one wishing him a happy birthday in April 2022, so nothing confirming that he was a forward, or that he's French, or that he played for Fiorentina when he won the award in 2019...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Done Dr Salvus 16:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Struway2[edit]

  • In the lead, better to display and link "association football" at first mention;
  • link playing positions and clubs at first mention;
  • and say what Serie A is: top tier of Italian football, or whatever: we're aiming at the general reader, not the football fan;
  • The month and year column doesn't sort in chronological order.
  • Ref #3 (the one at the top of the player column) links to the Italian-language version of the site; as it has an English-language version, could you link to that instead.
  • I don't understand how ref #4 (the one at the top of the club, nationality and playing position columns) sources all those columns for every recipient of the award. Taking Radja Nainggolan (November 2019) as an example: visiting the Lega Serie A site, clicking on the magnifying glass and typing the player's name in, I get a page with links to 52 articles. What am I missing?
  • Enough for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am busy, I don't know when I'm going to do it. Dr Salvus 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basshunter videography[edit]

Nominator(s): Eurohunter (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basshunter videograhy was previously nominated after successful nomination of Basshunter discography. It previously passed GOCE. Structure is after similar featured lists. Since previous nomination a lot of primary sources to YouTube were replaced with a secondary sources. Eurohunter (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from PresN[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="230" rowspan="2"| Title becomes !scope=col width="230" rowspan="2"| Title. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Right now you have on for the "Peak chart positions" cell, but none of the others
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Series of music videos with Aylar Lie received media attention" - when were these released and why did they receive media attention?
    •  Comment: Mainly 2008-2009. Music videos received media attention due to she was a model and music videos had commercial success like high number of views. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Basshunter has appeared in television, including involvement in the ninth episode" - "involvement" is redundant.
    •  Done. Removed: "Basshunter has appeared in television, including the ninth episode (...)". Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a Rock and Pop episode of Weakest Link." - what's a "Rock and Pop" episode?
    •  Done. It was episode attended by celebrities. "attended by celebrities" added at the end. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Rendition shows a Basshunter singing about playing Dota 2" - which rendition are we talking about?
    •  Done. It was supposed to mean trailer Basshunter Dota Revival. I have changed it to "Trailer shows a Basshunter singing about playing Dota 2 (...)". Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What makes CelebMix a high-quality reliable source? Zickma?
The number of followers of a website doesn't determine their reliability (Daily Mail has over 16m followers on Facebook and it is one of the worst sources you can use on Wikipedia). Nor does its usage in other Wikipedias or articles, see WP:OSE. What does make a source reliable is if they have a proper fact-checking process, are owned by a reputable publication or are mentioned in news articles that say the website is noteworthy/reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. @FrB.TG: How to determine if Retuers, BBC, CNN or The Guardian has a proper fact-checking process? Seems to not be easy in case of The Guardian as there is no obvious confirmation. How to find news articles that say the website is noteworthy/reliable? Do such articles even exist? Probably I can remember such articles but they are random. There is no articles about every reliable news media. Eurohunter (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. These published articles were added to support original references. For example Apple Music, Spotify or Netflix releases etc. so I added Zickma and CelebMix to include published article with link to Apple Music release insteaad of just pure link to Apple Music release. Eurohunter (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Reuters, BBC, CNN etc. are well-established, reputed publications and their reliability has been discussed in great details on Wikipedia, see their listings at WP:RSP. For such sources, it is very easy to find other third-party sources confirming their reputability (e.g. see Irish Independent saying "Reuters is a reputable agency and rarely gets these things wrong").
2. The point of third-party sources mentioning the music video is to establish its notability but if the sources in question are not reliable to begin with, you are better off sticking with the YouTube links for such videos. FrB.TG (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replaced Zickma with YouTube for now. Eurohunter (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I still stand by my statement that CelebMix is an unreliable source. For starters, they don't even have an "About us" page where one puts basic information like what the website does, when it was founded and how they gather their information. FrB.TG (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. References to CelebMix were removed. @FrB.TG: Eurohunter (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping me once these concerns are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG: Your comments have been taken into account. I need further comments from you, regarding the above points. Eurohunter (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FrB.TG: What do you think about? Eurohunter (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I have made several copyedits here. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • What the heck is a "second version"?
  • "17 music videos [....] two remix videos" - videos for remixes are still music videos, I see no reason to mention them separately?
  • "Basshunter released the music video for "Every Morning" and "I Promised Myself"" => "Basshunter released the music videos for "Every Morning" and "I Promised Myself""
  • "A series of music videos with Aylar Lie received media attention" - when? Any why?
  • ""Now You're Gone" became the most-viewed from the British YouTube videos in 2008" - what does this mean? It wasn't a British video if he is Swedish
  • "He appeared on Maspalomas Pride 2012 box-set" => "He appeared on the Maspalomas Pride 2012 box-set"
  • "Basshunter has appeared in television" - in English you appear on television, not in it
  • "a Rock and Pop episode of Weakest Link attended by celebrities" - not good English at all. Just say "a Rock and Pop celebrity episode of Weakest Link"
  • "In 2021 he appeared in Basshunter Dota Revival Netflix's trailer for Dota: Dragon's Blood." => "In 2021 he appeared in Basshunter Dota Revival, Netflix's trailer for Dota: Dragon's Blood."
  • Why does the table say the director for the DotA video is unknown? The footnote says who it was
  • "Music video for "Melody" was assembled by Farbod Khoshtinat" - what does this mean? How do you "assemble" a music video?
  • "Special version of album released in New Zealand and Poland contains DVD with nine Basshunter music videos." - this doesn't need a full stop
  • "Box set contains live recordings of various artists." - this also doesn't need a full stop
  • Note f - "Also censored version of "Dream on the Dancefloor" music video was released (uncredited)." should be "Censored version of "Dream on the Dancefloor" music video was also released (uncredited)."
  • Same with the note g
  • In those last two, what does "(uncredited)" mean?
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50th Anniversary of the Republic Sculptures[edit]

Nominator(s): Gazozlu (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a finished and complete list. It gives a good impression of the scope of these 20 sculptures and a quick overview of what happened to the ones that are no longer around. Gazozlu (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Move the refs to their own column. The rows where there are no notes look weird with the refs floating in the middle of a massive cell -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Took care of that issue. Also another option is to introduce another column with the material of the sculpture, (i.e. Concrete, bronze). Do you think that would be a good addition ... or too much? Gazozlu (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • The caption of the image in the lead does not need a full stop. Also, it is usual to place the lead image right at the top, not after the first paragraph of test
  • Merge tiny second paragraph with the one after
  • "The result of the project were" => "The result of the project was" (result is a singular word)
  • "Güzel İstanbul, by Gürdal Duyar, was found....." - this is an absolute monster of a sentence which takes up almost the whole paragraph. Can you break it up?
  • "Yağmur by Ferit Özşen suffered nature's wrath" - this is poetic wording not suitable for an encyclopedia. Just say "Yağmur by Ferit Özşen was damaged by [whatever damaged it]"
  • "Attacked and damaged for years and eventually removed in 2016." - not a sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • "about its appropriteness" => "about its appropriateness"
  • "Removed in 1987 when the road parallel to the beach was widened." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Stolen the same day[3] or a week after[16] it was inaugurated." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "In front of the Hilton Hotel in Harbiye." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Lost in 1979 during the construction of a preferential road." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "the last being front of the Yellow Kiosk" => "the last being in front of the Yellow Kiosk"
  • "Removed in 1985 during organisations of the Fındıklı Park." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Lost in 1980." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Stolen by scrap dealers[3] or was otherwise removed in 1986." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Removed from Gülhane Park in 1984 by the Parks and Gardens Directorate." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Removed during renovation of the park." - doesn't need a full stop
  • "Hüseyin Anka Özkans Yankı was worked on for 6 hours" => "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was worked on for six hours"
  • "Within the scope of the restorations the sculptures to be restored till the end of 2012" - that was ten years ago, but the wording talks about it in terms of a future plan. Did this definitely happen?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I have implemented your points. Gazozlu (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • It would be helpful to expand on why the sculptures were so controversial and who objected. Was is mainly religious people? This is of course if relevant sources exist.
    • The only one that is known to be removed by pressure from conservative people is Güzel Istanbul. The other ones that were removed were mostly not particularly controversial reasons such as lack of maintenance, vandalism, being stolen for scrap metal and being removed to make way for infrastructure etc. There's one or two others that were reportedly removed at the whim of a governor or mayor that allegedly didn't like the sculpture but there is not enough information about the reason to be able to say it was controversial. The details are per sculpture in the notes to the extent that information is available.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Güzel İstanbul, by Gürdal Duyar, was found to be "indecent"" Who decided it was indecent?
  • "Birlik by Mehmet Uyanık was the victim of a municipal compressor gun in 1986." The fact that it was deliberately destroyed is important, not how it was destroyed.
    • Clarified this, also the municipal pressure compressor gun (probably a pressure washer) detail is included because it has been noted in the sources that talk about it.checkY--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "construction of a preferential road". What is a preferential road?
    • A preferential road is a road that has a preference for who can use it such as for example a bus lane.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "preferential" should be explained in the text, or better still removed as irrelevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was worked on for 6 hours under the consultancy of Üzlifat Özgümü and at the end was reportedly restored to its original state." This is too much detail. I suggest "Hüseyin Anka Özkans' Yankı was reportedly restored to its original state."
  • In the notes, it would be helpful to state that a sculpture is still in its original location for those which are.
Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Dudley Miles: I have implemented your feedback.--Gazozlu (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, I implemented your suggestion on the further comment.--Gazozlu (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accolades received by Guardians of the Galaxy (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 03:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated this list since I reworked and expanded the table at the parent article for this standalone list of Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Chompy Ace 03:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Add link to Hollywood Post Alliance Award for Outstanding Editing – Feature Film
  • "The Maxwell Weinberg Publicists Showmanship Motion Picture Award" should not sort by "The"
  • I don't know if the CinemaCon Award really recognizes Pratt's work in this film specifically, but if it stays, the date should be changed.
  • This is really nitpicky, but when sorting, individuals should always come before groups. For instance, "Stephane Ceretti" should always sort before "Stephane Ceretti, Nicolas Aithadi, Jonathan Fawkner, and Paul Corbould", which isn't currently the case. (Template:Sortname can help with this, or updating the sort values. But again, this is pretty nitpicky and more for reference.)

RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RunningTiger123: all  Done. Chompy Ace 22:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1998[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a legend in the Latino community. If you go to any party and utter the words "Suavemente", you'll attract a swath of Hispanics chanting "Besame" and then the famous merengue song from Elvis Crespo plays. Keep that mind when you go to party with a large Hispanic following. Just like the Latin Pop Airplay charts of '98, the hurricane affected the Tropical Airplay charts. Erick (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "having topped the listing" => "topping the listing"
  • "Following a success stint" => "Following a successful stint"
  • "Grupo Manía themselves achieved their second number-one" => "Grupo Manía themselves achieved their second number one"
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude All fixed! Thanks as always! Erick (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arsenal Player of the Season[edit]

Nominator(s): Idiosincrático (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is my first time nominating a list. Honestly just looking for advice to perfect the article and to determine whether it is worth adding to the featured lists. I think its a really good list and I believe it is already considerably better than the other 'player of the year' featured lists. I think the list is simple, straight to the point, complete, well-referenced and informative. Again, really just looking for friendly advice so I can make it a better article. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Footballistically@Phikia@Hasanchoudhury97@StraightOuttaBoston@Footwiks@Mediocre Legacy Idiosincrático (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • The lead is split into five tiny paragraphs, some of these could probably be combined
Done
  • "The award is given based solely on the votes of Arsenal fans on Arsenal.com usually just before or after the last Premier League game of the season" - source?
Done
  • "The trophy resembles a replica of a cannon, referring to Arsenal's logo, and the statues of cannons outside the Emirates Stadium, Arsenal's home ground" - source? Also, surely it is a replica of a cannon, rather than just resembling a replica?
Done
  • "The 2015–16 and 2016–17 awards were officially called the Vitality Arsenal Player of the Season Award for sponsorship purposes." - source?
Done
  • "English people remain as the dominant nationality when receiving the award" - really strange wording. I would just say "English players have received the award most often".
Done
  • "Alan Smith won the 1989 award, being the league's top scorer." - source for the last bit?
Done
  • "Cesc Fàbregas won the award in 2007 at 20 years of age" - source for him being 20? Also this caption needs a full stop.
Removed it
  • "First Arsenal Academy graduate" - source? Doesn't really add to the article
Removed it
  • Players' names should sort based on surname, not forename
Done
  • What makes these high-quality reliable sources?
    • myfootballfacts.com - Replaced with book reference
    • thefootballfaithful.com - Replaced
    • english.stadiumastro.com - Replaced
    • sportmob.com - Replaced
    • thehardtackle.com - Replaced
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you so much @ChrisTheDude, I've had a good try at fixing these, please let me know how I went or if there is anything else. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One other thing I noticed (not sure if this was the case before or if it's because of subsequent changes - in the refs Arsenal F.C. is sometimes the work (and therefore in italics) and other times the publisher (and therefore not). It should be the publisher every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fixed, yeah it was definitely me systematically writing the manual references incorrectly. @ChrisTheDude Idiosincrático (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Captions added, I made them hidden as they all have headings. Cheers Idiosincrático (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose review[edit]

These are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to disagree.

  • Per MOS:NUM, all numbers smaller than ten in the lead should be spelt out in words. - Done
  • The final sentence of the lead could be added to the end of the first paragraph. - Done
  • "The award has been given based on votes by Arsenal fans on Arsenal.com." a) since when? b) no need to specify the address when you could just say "the club's website"
    - Part b addressed, see below for a
  • "However, it has been previously based on votes by the Arsenal Supporters' Trust." a) However is unnecessary, b) "has been" could just be "was" - Fixed
  • Not entirely sure why the best player is needed in "being awarded 'best player'" - Fixed
  • A source for the last few lines of the second paragraph would be helpful, just to make sure WP:DUE is satisfied. - Removed as I couldn't source the lines
  • Citation 4 doesn't support the sentence. - Removed the sentence and citation completely, also changed preview pic and caption

All for now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, thank you for your comments. I managed to address all of the points you brought up except part 'a' of your second point. This is because I couldn't find a source which indicates when they switched the vote to the club's website. I could traceback the vote on the website to 2005 but that doesn't exactly imply it started there, the encyclopedia source only says "the Offical Arsenal Supporters Club has voted for the award". Because I couldn't answer it, I've left the lead as is, please let me know if this is satisfactory or not. Other than that everything was fixed. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - there were still issues with the lead but I figured it was quicker to just make the changes than to explain them here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support --Phikia (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rita Ora discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Iaof2017 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and is well written as well as reliable. I'm looking forward to the comments. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • Why does a table which claims to show "List of other charted songs, with selected chart positions" include songs which did not chart....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My mistake, fixed.  Done Iaof2017 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • How is this article even being considered for a featured list in its current state?! ChrisTheDude, please review the quality of the previous version of this article and the version that laof2017 is pushing after basically ruining parts of the article. I'll list some of the issues. The lead section is now filled with unnecessary information and strange wording. The user arbitrarily removed the Dutch chart and certification from the albums section, and randomly added a Japan chart. In the extended plays section, the exact chart (the Dance/Electronic Albums chart) on which an EP charted was removed and BB 200 was added instead. In the singles section, the user split the singles into decades, as if her career was spanning 30 years. In the newly formed 2010s singles section, an 11th chart was added, the CIS one and the user even added positions such as 245 and 710. Since the discography was unnecessarily split into two parts, the user removed three charts from the "2020s" section. The user then reduced the featured singles charts as well, reducing them to seven, despite one of the singles listed charting on all ten of the previous charts. The user also inexplicably removed the "Latin" part from a US certification. The user then also removed charts from the "promotional singles" and "other charted songs" (which is now renamed as just "other songs"), and added new charts and new songs. The section "other appearances" was completely removed. The user added FALSE chart positions for "After the Afterparty", completely ignoring the fact that the version of the song that Ora featured on was just a remix that didn't chart anywhere.--Helptottt (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @ChrisTheDude: In regards to this, you may wish to peruse the article history (it is currently fully protected) and the ANI (permalink) which resulted in two editors being blocked as socks. Black Kite (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • To add to my initial reply, only the lead section of this article required a more detailed editing, but certainly not in the way it was done. Re: the charts, only the Scottish chart was supposed to be removed since it doesn't exist anymore. All the other removals and additions in the charts sections look ridiculous. The user laof2017 has pretty much debased this article. Helptottt (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comments
  • "In February 2012, Ora began her career" - according to our article on her, her career began as early as 2008
  • All charts should be linked in each table, not just the first one
  • I would lose the Scottish charts, as Scotland is part of the UK and you already have the UK charts. It would be like showing the charts for the US and also for Texas.
  • Songs in the "promotional singles" and "other songs" tables which did not chart need sources to confirm they exist
  • There are singles listed in the template at the bottom which don't seem to be included anywhere on this discography.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • The column scopes are close but not quite right; every column header cell needs the !scope=col, including the album chart ones, so e.g. ! style="width:3em; font-size:85%;" | [[UK Albums Chart|{{abbr|UK|United Kingdom}}]]... becomes !scope=col style="width:3em; font-size:85%;" | [[UK Albums Chart|{{abbr|UK|United Kingdom}}]].... For the cell that spans multiple columns with a colspan, use !scope=colgroup instead. Repeat for all tables.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 00:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Songwriting credits[edit]

She is not solely writer of "Invisible Girl", I don't know about "Shy". Eurohunter (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iaof2017: I forgot to ping you. Eurohunter (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from PerfectSoundWhatever[edit]

Resolved comments

Sorry if I say / do anything stupid— I have little experience with quality content reviews :).

  • Consider changing "has released two studio albums, two extended plays, 21 singles as a lead artist as well as seven as a featured artist, and six promotional singles." to "has released two studio albums, two extended plays, 21 singles as a lead artist, seven singles as a featured artist, and six promotional singles."
  • Change "Four of Ora's singles have topped the UK Singles Chart, while overall, 13 of her singles have reached the top 10, becoming the British female artist with the most top 10 entries in the ranking" to "Four of Ora's singles reached number one on the UK Singles Chart, while 13 of her singles reached the top 10, making Ora the British female artist with the most top 10 entries in the chart"
  • Unnecessary word. "It further reached the top 30 in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and Scotland"
  • Consider changing the five usages of "record" to "album". A record can refer to any phonograph disc, e.g. a single. Album is less ambiguous and therefore faster for a reader to process.
  • For conciseness, change "Singles from the record including, "How We Do (Party)" (2012) and "R.I.P." (2012)," to "The album's 2012 singles, "How We Do (Party)" and "R.I.P.""
  • Per WP:EASTEREGG, change "both peaked atop the UK Singles Chart" to "reached number one on the UK Singles Chart" or something similar.
  • "Five singles preceded the record" — why include 4 out of 5? Easier to include one more and remove the word "including".
  • Name the EP: change "In February 2021, Ora released her second extended play (EP) in collaboration with Kazakh producer Imanbek." to "In February 2021, Ora released the collaborative extended play Bang with Kazakh producer Imanbek."
  • Remove ambiguity, "The record spawned "Big" (2021)" to "The extended play [or EP] spawned "Big" (2021)"
  • What differentiates a promotional single, and a single by lead artist? For example, why is "Big" a lead single, but "Bang Bang" a promotional one, despite being released on the same day for the same project? The sources don't differentiate.
  • "Calling a single her "international breakthrough" (implying rise to success, not first release) is a strong statement to make without any inline citation. I would change it