Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in 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 another review process 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. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. 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 in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, 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.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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. Reviewing procedure 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. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''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. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, 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. 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 edit · history · watch · refresh 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: List of current United States governors (FLC) List of New England Revolution managers (FLC) List of cover versions of Coldplay songs (FLC) Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (FLC) Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of Olympic medalists in figure skating (FLRC)

Nominations

List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film)

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is my third accolades-related FLC. I have brought the article in line with similar FLs, added missing awards, removed some non-notable ones and improved sourcing. Joker was initially somewhat controversial, but it has also received significantly more awards than the films in my other nominations.

Note: My Hacksaw Ridge nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• The result column sorts weirdly with won > runner-up > nom > 23rd > 20th > 13th.
• That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It sorts alphabetically. Is it supposed to sort as win, runner-up, numerical places, nom and viceversa? Sgubaldo (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in to say that IMO it should sort by placement, for want of a better term, so Won, then runner-up, then "numbered" places from 3rd downwards, then un-numbered "nominated"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Now sorts properly regardless of whether you look in ascending or descending order. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do this source review, numbers taken from this revision [1] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Refs 7, 10, 32, 41 are live, though seems to be listed as dead.

• Ref 41 is listed as ANSA and not spelt out as opposed to British Society of Cinematographers.

Only problems I see now. I'll have the spoties done soon. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• All have been returned back to life.
• Fully spelt out.

Sgubaldo (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 5 Good
• Ref 10 Good
• Ref 16 Good
• Ref 19 Good
• Ref 22 Good
• Ref 28 Good
• Ref 30 Good
• Ref 35 Good
• Ref 48 Good
• Ref 57 Good
• Ref 68 Good
• Ref 70 Good
• Ref 74 Good
• Ref 97 Good
• Ref 101 Good
• Ref 105 Good

Spell out RTBF in ref 24.

What's the relability of AwardsWatch? That's all I got. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Spelt out RTBF.
• AwardsWatch is a website on the film industry and awards; it's similar to Awards Daily. It seems reliable for film awards and it's been used in FLs already. My reasoning for using it was because I wanted secondary source for all the accolades, but sometimes none of the bigger websites covered a specific one while AwardsWatch did. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

List of constituencies of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

My fifth FL nom and the third in the constituency series. This time it is a larger list with 230 constituencies. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "As of 2001, it comprises 230 members" - 2001 was more than 20 years ago, so the present tense is not appropriate. Surely there is more up-to-date info available?
• "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constitute a significant portion of the population of the state" => "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constituted a significant portion of the population of the state" (past tense, as 2011 was more than 10 years ago). I presume more up-to-date data has not been published?
• "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states merged with the Indian Union, and became a new state" => "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states, merged with the Indian Union and became a new state"
• "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184. 127 constituencies were single-member, and 48 constituencies were double-member" => "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184, of which 127 were single-member and 48 were double-member"
• "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was created by merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states." => "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states."
• I notice that you use both the US spelling "recognized" and the UK spelling "recognised". I don't know which is the correct spelling in Indian English but whichever it is should be used in all cases.
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Switched from "As of 2001," to "From 2001," which is what I meant. I can clarify/reword that statement further, if required.
  • I assume you mean reorganized, not recognized. I've switched to the spelling used in the name of the act: "Reorganisation", which is the UK one. There is still one instance of "Reorganization", but that is from the title of a paper by two US authors.
  • The 2021 census of India hasn't yet taken place. 2011 is the latest completed census.
  • Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron

Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Boy and the Heron (2023) is the latest — and potentially last — animated feature film from Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. It collected a total of 27 wins among its 64 notable award nominations; among them were wins at the 96th Academy Awards and 77th British Academy Film Awards, which had seldom, if ever, recognized Japanese animations in the past. I hope you'll enjoy the read, and I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: I am a first-time nominator at FLC, so feel free to leave me detailed feedback or conduct in-depth spot checks as necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

DBC

• 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. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tip, MPGuy2824; done! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like other reviewers have helped you fix the small issues that were in the list. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Sgubaldo

• Infobox
  • In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).

    Done. —TS

  • I'm not sure if it's a standard but, in all other FLs I've seen, runner-up and 3rd places are also counted as wins.

    I'm not very inclined to do this, especially since several sources clearly delineate the winners and runners-up in separate sections. —TS

• Table
  • Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).

    That's exactly the issue I encountered, which is why this wasn't included. It's worth noting that an article for this yearly event has not been created since 2011, leading me to believe it may no longer be a notable awards ceremony. —TS

  • I feel the article would look a lot nicer if the awards in the table were listed in alphabetical order already without needing to sort by clicking on the column.

    Done. Chronological order made it easier to collaborate with other editors while the film was still receiving awards, but I must admit to also preferring alphabetical order. —TS

• Lead
  • [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.

    This seems gramatically correct as is; not done for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. —TS

  • The film was released on July 14, 2023, by Toho. ==> The film was released theatrically in Japan on July 14, 2023, by Toho.

    Done. —TS

  • After that sentence, I'd add a bit about its release internationally. Perhaps roughly along the lines of "The film had its international premiere at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, and had its theatrical release in the United States on December 8.", but you can write that however you want.

    Done. —TS

• References
  • The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.

    Done. —TS

  • Add Fandango Media as publisher for the Rotten Tomatoes reference.

    Done. —TS

Most of these are pretty minor, well done on your first FLC nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, Sgubaldo! All comments addressed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Three More

• In Note e, I don't think you need "(all 2023)" considering it's the Top Ten Films of the Year.

Done. —TS

• Ref. 31 is missing an author (Kelly Ng)

Done. —TS

• At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki received Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film had received the award ==> At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki won Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film received the award; just to avoid repetition of received in the same sentence

Done. —TS

• Two Nitpicks

• Wikilink Florida Film Critics Circle in Ref. 28 (and change from website to publisher in both Ref. 28 and Ref. 29 to make consistent with all the other critics circle/society/association references)

Thanks for calling these out; I made a few passes to get all of the citations standardized before nominating, but evidently couldn't catch everything! Done. —TS

• Ref. 2, Ref. 40 and Ref. 43 have Anime News Network as a publisher while Ref. 6 has it as a website; make them consistent.

Done. —TS

A comment on the infobox

One of the reasons I included the point about runners-up and 3rd places being counted as wins is because Template:infobox awards list automatically includes the note:

"Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up, and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.".

I appreciate that this is not necessarily the best way to do it (and maybe something to bring up on the template page) but, for the purposes of this FLC, I'd like them to be included as wins. I'm not going to die on this hill though so, after the five comments above are resolved, I'll support.

Ah, I'd forgotten about the note baked into the infobox. This seems like a fairly problematic consequence of the template being inflexible, but now may not be an appropriate moment to propose changes to it for one article. Done for now. —TS

Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo: Responses above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Great work. Sgubaldo (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I've got nothing other than what was sorted above. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks as always, ChrisTheDude! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Greatly appreciated, ChompyAce! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do the source review. Numbers from this revision [2].

• Refs 9 and 10 have contradicting numbers.
• Refs 11-13, 28, 31, 44 are good.
• Ref 15 Good
• Ref 23 Good
• Ref 28 Good
• Ref 33 Good
• Ref 36 Good
• Ref 40 Good
• Ref 44 Good
• Ref 48 Good
• Ref 55 Good
• Ref 56 Good.

Everything is archived so just clarify the box office thing and it should be good.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you, Oli, and thanks for the review! I've removed the Box Office Mojo reference for now as it seems to be out of date — presumably not displaying the film's recent earnings in China. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Support Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I've replaced the source yet again, this time with one from Deadline Hollywood, as The Numbers seems to have fallen slightly out of date as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – The lead image has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. No issues here from what I can see. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate it, Giants2008! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 22 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Would writing "Third place" instead of "3rd place" be more appropriate for the December 11, 2023, IndieWire Critics Poll result?

  Sure, why not? The relevant guideline is neutral on this specific situation, but there seems to be a general preference for ordinals being spelled out. —TS

• Is there a reason you're using linebreaks to put references on new lines? I don't believe this is a best practice and, while I don't believe this is your intention, it sort of looks as though you're trying to separate the references into their own cells.

  The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using <br> tags to prevent the column from being unnecessarily widened when multiple footnotes are being used, emulating the style I've seen used on many other lists. If you know a better way to do that, do let me know and I'll apply it. —TS

• Refs column should abbr instead, since some columns have multiple references

  Done. —TS

• Ref 25 – Change Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association to Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association

  Done. —TS

• Ref 27 – Add date of December 21, 2024

  Done. —TS

• Ref 45 – No publish date listed at the source. Archive date should also probably be updated, given that relevant information has since been added to the live page.

  Done. —TS

• Ref 52 – Not seeing a date at the target that matches up with the December 17, 2023, date listed. Perhaps this was mistakenly added based on a portion of the source stating nominations were announced that day?

  That might have been the case; removed. —TS

I too did a source review, just because you did one for me and I figured it'd be good to help you by being extra thorough with your first (of many I hope) FLC. Very good stuff for your first go of it. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments, Josh! Responses are above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Source & image review from Dylan620

I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review on hold, details below:

• The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}.
• Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
  • Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
  • Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
  • Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
  • Adding {{rp|page(s)=n}} after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
• Source formatting is consistent across the board.
• All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.

After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:

• All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• All images have suitable alt text.
• Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
• The captions themselves are well-written.
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple minor things I forgot to mention:

• "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
• "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web . – Done.
• Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today? – I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.
• Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27. – That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.
• Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander. – Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).
• Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify. – Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find.
• "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here. – Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?
• "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has – Done.

I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
• Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia

Nominator(s): Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Tunisia has nine World Heritage sites and 15 sites on the tentative lists. Several ancient cities and Roman remains, as well as desert locations. Standard style. The list for Morocco is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule, but I've noticed that nominators wait for 2 (or more) supports on an older nomination before starting a new one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "because of construction" to "because of the construction" - in the lead and the table
• " resulted in reduction of vegetation and drop in bird numbers" to " resulted in a reduction of vegetation and a drop in bird numbers" - in the lead and the table
• "between the 12th to the 16th centuries" to "between the 12th and 16th centuries"
• wikilink "Islamic world"
• " series of wars until the" to " series of wars, until the"
• wikilink necropolis
• The sentences about minor boundary changes don't seem important to the list.
• "listed endangered" to "listed as endangered".
• "By 2006, the situation has improved" to "By 2006, the situation had improved"
• "As opposed to several Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre," to "Unlike other Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre,"
• "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE and were discovered in 1952, provide an important insight into the Punic urban planning." to "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were rediscovered in 1952, and provide an important insight into Punic urban planning."
• "under the Aghlabids as a part of" to "under the Aghlabids, as a part of"
• "The medina has been well preserved, with several monuments, including the Ribat, which is both a fortification and a religious building, the Great Mosque (pictured), the kasbah, the Bou Ftata Mosque, and fortifications." - too long and complicated. Please split.
• "important Libyan–Punic settlement which" to "important Libyan–Punic settlement, which"
• "lives here while" to "lives here, while".
• "have been reintroduced" to "were reintroduced".
• "mammals and reptiles and it" to "mammals and reptiles, and it".
• I'll continue later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...

• "As opposed to several sections of Roman Limes" to "Unlike several sections of Roman Limes".
• "Sfax was the gateway and the port of Ifriqiya to the Levant." to "Sfax was the port of the Ifriqiya region, and its gateway to the Levant".
• "Geological formation" to "The geological formation" in two entries.
• "extinction event supporting" to "extinction event, supporting".
• A couple of the refs are missing archive links.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks! I am trying to list the boundary modifications, either major (which get extra explanation) or minor, because this is still relevant - it is a list of WHS after all. And it explains why some numbers have bis or ter attached - I've had questions on that before :) Tone 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "By 2006 the situation has improved" => "By 2006 the situation had improved"
• "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were discovered in 1952" => "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE, were discovered in 1952"
• "The island of Djerba has a semi dry climate" => "The island of Djerba has a semi-dry climate"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed! Two of these were already mentioned above and I just took care of them :) Tone 09:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  You still have "By 2006 the situation has improved" in the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, fixed now :) Tone 14:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Municipalities of Nayarit

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 45 (!!) lists in North America. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. 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) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Santiago Ixcuintla is third largest municipality by population." => "Santiago Ixcuintla is the third largest municipality by population."
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nice catch! All done. Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• There has to be a more urban-looking image for Compostela.

• I agree but there does not seem to be any. The urban area is quite tiny, and would be more of a town feel, which is perhaps why there are no images? Mattximus (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Since municipalities are the second-level administrative divisions in Mexico, it would be nice to get a map of Nayarit divided into its municipalities.

• Well I did my best at making my own map. It's not perfect, but does it do what you wanted? Mattximus (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Compostela image: The other municipality images in the list are urban. I think using the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, instead of what is there now, would be better.
• Done
• Map of municipalities: Nice job. If you still have the svg file, then upload that as well, to commons. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• I saved it as png unfortunately, however I realize an error, in that I didn't use the Spanish spelling (missing accents) on a few words. I suppose it's ok for English wikipedia, but I don't think I have time to redo it. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Additional disclaimer: my Spanish is very poor.
• "West Mexico": The capital "W" means that there's a well-known area called "West Mexico" ... if so, please link "West Mexico" to a Wikipedia page that tells us what it is. If not, then use "western" instead of "West".
• "all the public services for their constituents": I'd shorten it to "all public services" (without "constituents"), unless I'm missing something.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable (but note my disclaimer), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine except for the last one; see below.
• 6. It is stable.
• I'll go ahead and support, but I recommend either removing the last image or doing some research on the validity of the license, since a banned sockpuppet uploaded it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm agreed with the reviewer above about looking for other images for Compostela. Your choice, but I agree with him that the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, looks like it would work. And ping me sometime about whether there's a "West Mexico" or not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Sure, switched picture, no problem. Should I write Pacific Mexico? I'm completely open to other wording! Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
      • In general, I stay away from discussions over what to call a geographic area ... but this is a different issue, it's about the capitalization. A proper noun means: "This is a thing. Maybe there's some disagreement over exactly what it is, but it's a definite thing, and this is what I think the name is". So, is West Mexico a thing? Is Pacific Mexico a thing? If so, then there's probably a paragraph somewhere on Wikipedia that tells you what that term means. If not, then it's best to avoid the proper noun. "western Mexico" means just "somewhere on the western side of Mexico". - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Right that makes sense. I did some poking around and there is a region in spanish called "Western Mexico" which contains this state. I used that term now, with proper capitalization. Thanks for the tip! Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but the phrase doesn't seem to exist (as an actual thing) on the English Wikipedia or in English-language dictionaries (that I can find), so I lowercased it. Everything looks good now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers from 1936 to 1969 (companion to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)). As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review (note, I strove to implement comments made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)/archive1 in this article). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Explain the first instance of AAFC.
  • Explained. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• "may not be representative of a player’s college position or current position." - I hope none of them are "current" players.
  • This was a note held over from Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present). I have augmented it a bit to be more reflective of this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Is there a good reason to limit the width of the tables to 50% of the screen? They would take up less space if the width was increased (or removed).
  • This came about when I made the decision to forego one large sortable table for a table for each draft. Without any width established, the tables varied significantly in total width and column, making for a graphically displeasing result. The purpose is primarily to standardize the column width to convey the feel of one cohesive table while still providing separate tables. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• It looks like the pick column is the same for each year, except for a few rows (e.g. 1968 and 1969). If explanations are available for them, then add them as notes.
  • The Pick # changes for a number of reasons, including trades and specific rules for each draft. Explaining each one of these, especially when applied to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present), would be seriously excessive. We would be talking hundreds of notes. As an example, just in 2024 the Packers had multiple compensatory picks, and completed 3 trades involving 10 picks. This also changed the Pick # for them, and would likely require at least 4 separate notes, maybe more. I am open to adding some type of note explaining why the Pick # changes, but I feel like any more stumbles into sports almanac territory. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• An explanatory line or two in the 1950 AAFC section would be nice.
  • I added an additional line in the lead that the AAFC was formed as a competing league in 1946. Is there more that you feel needs explained? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MPGuy2824 for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• The sentences about the 1950 AAFC draft might not make too much sense in the lead. You can move it to the top of the relevant section.

• Respectfully MPGuy2824, I disagree. In this type of list, as a reader, I am not expecting just one section to have some explanatory text (especially one buried halfway down the page). My expectation, as is for most lists, is that the lead is going to summarize what the table is all about (in this case, for ease of navigation, I broke the table up into 35 smaller tables). Note that even if someone took a direct link to that section (i.e. Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1950 AAFC dispersal draft) the hatnote would provide a quick reference to get a larger understanding of what the dispersal draft is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• MPGuy2824, just wanted to touch base to see if you are ok with my response and make sure you did not have any other comments that need to be addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, sure. Looks like this got missed out somehow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• "From 1936 to 1969, eleven players drafted by the Packers have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" to "Eleven of the players drafted by the Packers between 1936 and 1969 have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I am seeing "Cite error: The named reference "Position" was defined multiple times with different content" at the bottom...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, it got fixed by another editor. I noticed that and fixed all but one instance, which is why the error was still present. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

—

• Support - all looks good! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Looks consistent with the 1970 draft picks list. Nothing that requires further improvement. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 9 and 27 are the same, you should name ref 9 and re-use it
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• ...while most of the remaining players from the other five AAFC teams were placed in the dispersal draft for selection by existing NFL teams. – I think this phrasing can be improved. Perhaps something to the effect of, the players from the defunct teams became automatically eligible for selection by existing NFL team in the dispersal draft.
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Not sure if we want to complicate things a bit, but do we want to discuss anything regarding rights of players on those 5 teams who were previously drafted by NFL teams? Probably not I imagine, but I thought I'd ask.
  • Probably not. Honestly, finding anything on the dispersal draft was real challenge. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• The acronym NFC is defined but never re-used, can be removed
  • I think I mentioned this on another list, but I like to keep it because the acronym is eponymous with the Conference (i.e. it is more well known as "NFC" then spelt out). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Consider adding the {{Use American English}} template to the top of the article under the short description
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Under the 1944 draft section, there's a draft entry for Alex Agase who seems to match one of the images. However, the wikilink in the image links to Andre Agase (back at it again!) instead
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Under the 1962 draft section, the image has a typo. It wikilinks Buck Buchanon instead of Buck Buchanan
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• The sections for 1967, 1968, and 1969 should have the "main article" pointed to "YYYY NFL/AFL draft" instead of "NFL draft".
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Given that the 1950 AAFC dispersal draft took place before the 1950 NFL draft, the dispersal draft should come before the regular draft in the order
  • Reordered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Hey man im josh, I have responded to or fixed everything you notes. Appreciate the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Good stuff Gonzo! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 1985/1986

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yet another in the series of snooker world rankings lists. Steve Davis held a large lead over anyone else. Unlike the previous two years, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association did not change its mind about how to compile the list after it was published. As per usual, copies of relevant source extracts can be provided to reviewers, and all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule on this, but to me the lead image looks a bit odd in the middle of the lead rather than its usual position of right at the top

• Moved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Dashes within dashes looks a bit weird in the second paragraph. Maybe change the one before "which were" to a comma

• Amended in a different way, but happy with your suggestion here instead.

• "In the 1983/84 snooker season" vs "with effect from the 1984–85 season" vs "for the 1985/1986 rankings".....? Three different formats?

• Now hopefully all like 1985/1986. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tournaments that counted towards the 1985/1986 were those" - think the word "rankings" is missing

• Added "rankings" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament. (For example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match.)" => "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament (for example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match)."

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• This needs amending in the "points tariff" section too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Now done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Initially the rankings were based on performances -- comma after initially
• The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added for to the ranking list with effect from the -- unless it is a BEng styling - for conciseness The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added to the ranking list
• In additional to standard ranking points awarded as per the table below -- In addition to standard ranking points
• That's all from me. Great works as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, {{u|Pseud 14}. Hopefully now sorted, but let me know if nayhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• The ping didn't go through. Just a couple points missed, but made the edits so it's easier. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Alex Higgins' total needs to be corrected.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the sentence "Merit points were only used to determine placings between players that had an equal opportunity to earn them." An explanation might help me justify the relative rankings of Meo, Thorne and Charleton (10-12). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings This would exacerbate the problem. But, I'd guess that there were similar things in other tournaments which worked in reverse. I assume that you are getting the ranking from one of the books in addition to snooker.org. Should be fine, if so.
  • In any case, I support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |1|| ... becomes !scope=row | 1, on its 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 13:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oops, I should know that by now. Now added. thanks, PresN. Regads, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – The books, newspaper articles and website pages used all appear sufficiently reliable and well-formatted. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Bocchi the Rock! discography

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's something different from my past FLCs: this is about the discography...of an anime series! Bocchi the Rock! is one of the most popular anime of 2022, which led to its song album selling over 100,000 physical copies and all of its songs appearing in music charts in Japan. This is my fourth nomination, and any feedback would be appreciated as always! Harushiga (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

DBC

• The "CD singles" table has the non-applicable sentence ' "—" denotes single that did not chart.' Please remove. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Done. Harushiga (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of historic places in the Chatham Islands

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My first featured list candidate! This is an extremely niche topic; the Chatham Islands are a tiny New Zealand island chain far to the east of the main islands, most notable for their bloody 19th century history. Most of these structures are so obscure that their New Zealand Heritage List entries are their only online presence, and a lot of them don't even have their full reports available! The obscurity notwithstanding, I hope this is a well-composed list. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

I'll do a more thorough review afterwards, but for now, I wanted to point out that your table needs to be accessible, which includes column and scope rows. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed up! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 1 – Change website from Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, to reflect the name of the article
  • Done. -G
• Refs 3 and 4 – Where do you get the date of 2023 from?
  • For 4: Copyright date of the website, although I realize that doesn't necessarily match the content. 3 was accidental; I removed the dates on these. - G
• Ref 7 – Remove website, publisher is enough.
  • Makes sense, done. - G
• Bibliography item 1 – Shows a publish date of 2010-10-30 but the item only says 2010 for the date
  • Fixed. - G
• Add archive links with IABot
• Is there any reason you didn't make this table sortable? I understand the notes section wouldn't be useful for sorting.
  • None in particular, I added sorting. - G
• I noticed Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places and Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places exist. For Category 2, it says, This category lists buildings, structures and other places which have been declared Category II under the New Zealand Historic Places Act 1993 - "...places of ‘historical or cultural heritage significance or value" – It might make sense to include a very brief mention that these classifications are a result of the Historic Places Act 1993.
• You got me to look into it, and this was actually repealed; the categorization system is set up by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Added!
• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Good idea, added. - G

That's what I've got for now. Good stuff, especially for your first FLC Generalissima! Ping me when my comment has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Addressed I think! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• For greater context, I'd be tempted to pinch the opening sentences from the main article on the islands and add them at the start i.e. "The Chatham Islands (/ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm) (Moriori: Rēkohu, lit. 'Misty Sun'; Māori: Wharekauri) are an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean about 800 km (430 nmi) east of New Zealand's South Island. They are administered as part of New Zealand. The first inhabitants, the Moriori, suffered disease outbreaks......."
  • Added. - G
• "A statue of Tommy Solomon" - maybe add a brief clause explaining who he was
  • Added. - G
• "A two-story colonial house" - can I just confirm that that is the correct spelling in NZ English and not a typo? I only ask because here in the UK we spell it "storey"
  • Ooh, yep. I'm a Yank, my apologies. - G
• "Its' construction" - no reason for that apostrophe
  • Fixed. - G
• I would remove the line break in the description of Hunts Forge, to be consistent with all the other listings.
  • Fixed. - G
• That's all I got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Good ideas all around! Implemented. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    • One thing that just occurred to me.........what is the initial order of the entries in the table based on? It's not alphabetical or in date order of construction or registration. I might be missing something blindingly obvious but it seems completely random......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

      @ChrisTheDude: Ah yes! Fixed, put it by date of construction. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I fixed 3 sorting problems; two entries needed {{sort}} templates, and the Notes column generally isn't sorted, so I fixed that. (It was sorting with "a" first, then "an" then "the", which isn't helpful.)
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Assuming any leftover problems from the reviews above are dealt with: Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Initial comment: The other articles in Category:Lists of historic places in New Zealand include a column for images. I'd recommend the same here. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

List of masters of Trinity College, Cambridge

Nominator(s): IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominating for featured list because...

• expanded the lead to describe the role
• described the Master's lodge building
• highlighted significant developments made by masters of the college
• summarised the notability of each entry on the list
• added related images with alt text

IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Might be worth mentioning at the start that Trinity is part of the University of Cambridge
• "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, from merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall" => "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall"
• " then Warden of King's hall" - shouldn't hall have a capital H, like in the previous sentence?
• "The Façade of the building" - facade isn't a proper noun so it doesn't need a capital
• "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of lodge" => "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of the lodge"
• Great Court is linked twice in the lead
• (Aside) was the second master known informally as Bill Bill? ;-)
• "Vice-Chancellor (1548)" - probably worth making it explicit that he (and others who held this role) was VC of Cambridge, not of some other institution
• That's what I got. Great work! In fact it's inspired me to get out of my comfort zone of music and football and work on a similar article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Done (UoC)
  • Done (Merging the colleges)
  • Done (King's Hall)
  • Done (façade)
  • Done (the lodge)
  • Done (Great Court)
  • Not done (Bill Bill)—Very funny
  • Done (Vice-Chancellor) Wrote "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" for each entry. Also did the same for St John's College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Cambridge, which have Oxford colleges of the same name.

  IntGrah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• John Redman, Robert Beaumont, and Thomas Comber are all disambiguation pages
• You are missing column and row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice
• A number of these names are unnecessarily preceded by a title, while others who do have titles that match what's included don't show them. Try to match the target page's name instead, minus disambiguators of course.

Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Thanks for spotting; it was a mistake made when switching from Wikilinks to Sortname templates.

Done Row scopes are attached to the names

Done Names now match article titles.

IntGrah (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}} becomes !scope=row |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}}. 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 20:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "appointmented" to "appointed" OR rewrite the sentence to "The role is an official appointment by the monarch, at the recommendation of the college, ..."
• Some stats about the shortest and longest tenure would be nice in the lead.
• I'll reiterate PresN's point about having a primary cell for each row. I'd recommend the name cell.
• According to [4] William Bill stopped being master of St. John's in 1551, so you can remove the "?" after that year. In the same cell, remove the full stop at the end since this isn't a complete sentence.
• The empty ref column for the second William Bill stint looks odd. You can re-cite the earlier ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Done (appointed) I think the version "The role is an official appointment by the monarch..." doesn't allow for the fact that it is only ceremonial nowadays.
• Partially done I added a bit about Richard Bentley, since his long tenure is significant. (He was charged twice by the fellows, but held the role. The first sentencer died, and the second sentence was meant to be executed by the vice-master, whom he was a friend of.) I didn't think it was interesting enough to talk about the shortest term of office though.
• I already have | scope="row" |{{Sortname|First|Last}} on each table row, is that enough, or is there a another way to mark these as primary?
• Done (Bill Bill)
• Done (Empty ref)

IntGrah (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of | scope="row" | it should be ! scope="row" | -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? I didn't see this in other featured lists, and I think putting the picture first is better in this case. I made a test edit for now, but I am under the impression that | scope=... is sufficient for screenreader software. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IntGrah (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It has to be a !. The reason is that, for wikicode, ! means a header cell, and | means a regular cell. Scope tags only work on header cells (since they're identifying the header cell for the row). Note, though, that the header cell, oddly, doesn't actually need to be the first cell in the row, so if you want the picture column to be the first one then that's fine. I personally don't like the look, but it's not invalid. --PresN 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the highlighted effect on the header cell looks weird when it is the second column. Is the current state fine then? (With the name as the header column) IntGrah (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I think it is fine now with the name as the first column (+ header). Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

List of crocidurines

Nominator(s): PresN 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Back with animal list #38, we reach our problem list (and first list) of the problem family in the order Eulipotyphla: shrews part 1! You see, at about 475 species, Eulipotyphla is too big for a list—that's normal. At 408 species, Soricidae (shrews) is also too big (as in templates stop rendering too big)—that's a first for our series, but fortunately it has three subfamilies, so we can break it up like that. And here in our first subfamily list, for Crocidurinae, we have 235 species (which is pushing it on length), and we start right off the bat with... a single genus of 191 species. For reference, that's almost 10% of the species I've covered in this 38-list series, in a single genus. And it's a genus of almost identical tiny shrews; Walker's Mammals of the World doesn't even break them into species, and just lumps pretty much the entire genus into "they're all about the same size and eat the same things. You tell them apart by their back feet and tails." In any case, they're all here, if with fewer pictures than I'd like, and it follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Nothing to nitpick, but perhaps technical-ish terms of ecosystems/communities such as savannas, shrublands, and grasslands can be linked for unfamiliar readers.
• That's all I was able to find. An informative and well-structured lists as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: Done. --PresN 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - epic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• C. floweri is missing its habitat which seems to be arable land.
• Wikilink "supratidal" and "intertidal".
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824: Missed this on my watchlist somehow; both now done. --PresN 01:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Source reliability and formattting both look okay throughout the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers since the modern draft began in 1970. As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• (the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included in this supplemental draft). -- I think the flow of the prose should be fine if you remove the parenthetical, and then enclose "(CFL)".
  • Revised. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Since the "position" and "college" columns are sortable, items should be linked every time, as there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first.
  • I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [5] [6]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
        • Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
          • @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
            • The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
              • @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
                • I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
                  • Thanks PresN. @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude: does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

                    Nothing further from me. I am satisfied with Gonzo's reasoning and thus happy to support for promotion given PresN's clarification. Will take note in my future reviews. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Thanks Pseud 14. Replies above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "With the 2nd pick" => "With the second pick"
• "became the Packers first modern draft selection" => "became the Packers' first modern draft selection"
• "Since 1970, two Packers players have been drafted and then inducted" => "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Packers have been inducted"
• "The Packers have taken part in every modern NFL draft since" - add "1970" (and potentially lose the word "modern")
• "Mike McCoy was the Packers first-round selection in the 1970 draft." => "Mike McCoy was the Packers' first-round selection in the 1970 draft."
• "Keith Wortman was the Packers 10th round selection in the 1972 draft." => "Keith Wortman was the Packers' 10th round selection in the 1972 draft."
• "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft." => "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers' 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft."
• "Eric Torkelson was the Packers 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" => "Eric Torkelson was the Packers' 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" (also full stop is missing)
• "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers 12th round selection in the 1975 draft." => "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers' 12th round selection in the 1975 draft."
• "Aundra Thompson was the Packers 5th round selection in the 1976 draft.2 => "Aundra Thompson was the Packers' 5th round selection in the 1976 draft."
• "James Lofton, the Packers first-round selection in the 1978 draft," => "James Lofton, the Packers' first-round selection in the 1978 draft,"
• In fact, just check all image captions for that same issue as it happens in almost every one.....
• I'll wait and see what the co-ords say about repeat linking but my understanding was also that it should be applied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude! I believe I have addressed everything. I kept "modern" to provide differentiation between this and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) (the use of "modern", like "modern era" or "modern draft" is used a lot in sources). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 2/6 – If the intention is to link the first occurence of NFL.com, the link should be moved from ref 6 to ref 2. For what it's worth though, you have avoided linking in this situation in the past, from what I can tell.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 9 – Add that the source is via Google News
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 4/5 – In your referencing style, I thought websites are not normally linked unless they're news agencies. If so, wouldn't we want to link to the title of the article page instead of having the website as the URL wikilinked?
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• "first-round" is used 11 times in the article but "1st" is not used at all. Some images use "5th round" or "2nd round" (for example). This should probably be consistent.
  • Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not a big college football guy, so excuse my question if it's a silly one, but do teams actually abbreviate to "St." instead of "State"? This may be appropriate, maybe it just looks weird to me...?
  • I tried to stick to Pro-Football-Reference.com as much as possible. It also had the added benefit of shortening up the text a bit (a few were so long that they were being pushed to another row). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Could link picks #2 in 1970 and 1989 to List of second overall NFL draft picks
  • Definitely. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Could also link "second pick" in the third paragraph of the lead to the same place.
  • Definitely. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|April 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Should this be List of Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) instead? I suggest making this as a redirect if not.
  • Made a redirect. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Not relevant for this review, but should Green Bay Packers draft picks redirect to a dab instead? It redirects to Green Bay Packers draft history, but a dab could include that page, the picks from 1936–1969 list, this list, and the first-round pick list.
  • My hope was that {{Green Bay Packers draft history sidebar}} would cover this. Because of the naming of Green Bay Packers draft history, I chose to stay consistent and drop the "List of" (notwithstanding the historically established "List of first-round picks"). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's all I've got, good stuff on the list Gonzo! Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh: all addressed or responded to. Thanks for he review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it. Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen? – I believe we use hyphens when talking about picks, as in first-round pick but if we said selected in the first round, we would leave the unhyphenated. I can't explain the reasoning of it all to be perfectly honest, but this is the norm that I've learned and followed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.

  • 1970 (multiple firsts)
  • 1978 (multiple firsts)
  • 1983 (multiple tenths)
  • 1985 (multiple sevenths)
  • 1995 (multiple thirds)
  • 1998 (multiple sixths)
  • 1999 (multiple sevenths)
  • 2000 (multiple sevenths)
  • 2002 (multiple fifths)
  • 2007 (multiple sixths)
  • 2008 (multiple seconds)
  • 2009 (multiple firsts)
  • 2012 (multiple fourths)
  • 2013 (multiple fourths)
  • 2016 (mutliple fourths)
  • 2021 (multiple fifths)
  • 2022 (multiple firsts)
  • 2023 (multiple seconds)
  • 2024 (multiple thirds)

  Seems like these should be tweaked so it's not implied they're the only picks from the Packers' in that round. Possibly by replacing with x overall pick, or one of the Packers' fifth-round selections (as an example). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  No other issues I'm seeing then. Suppport! Great stuff, despite it being for the cheeseheads. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh, ChrisTheDude, and Pseud 14:, just wanted to note I am currently working on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and will bring to FLC after this one; I will be (or already have) be implementing all of these comments there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Woops, got my wires crossed and for some reason mistook what I was looking at as this page. Sorry about that! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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 20:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • PresN, I have added the table captions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi filmography

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC), Rusted AutoParts

I am nominating this for featured list because I have sourced the contents of the page. This would be part of a FT around Capaldi. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "His first acting role was in a 1974 play titled An Inspector Calls" - that implies that the play was written or first staged in 1974, which isn't correct. I would suggest "His first acting role was in a 1974 performance of the play An Inspector Calls" Done
• "Living Apart Together" should be in italics, also it would be good to say if it was a TV show or a film as "onscreen appearance" is vague Done
• "He portrayed the twelfth incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who (2013–2017) and Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It (2005–2012)" - I would say it would make more sense to put these in chronological order Done
• "voice acting including, Rabbit" - no reason for that comma Done
• "Chrisopher Robin (2018)" - this is spelt incorrectly, also it should be in italics Done
• "He preformed as Professor Marcus in The Ladykillers." - "performed" is spelt wrong, also title should be in italics, also what was this? Another radio play? Done
• In the tables, roles should sort based on surname where the character had one Done
• Any title starting with "the" should sort based on the next word Done
• "Denotes works that have not yet been released"

- there don't seem to be any so just lose this Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Done
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1982 becomes !scope=row | 1982 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Done
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. Done

--PresN 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Jewish Major League Baseball players

Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete as per the given criteria in the article, is well sourced and, IMO, clears the requirements for FLC. To my surprise, the topic of Jewish MLB players is well documented but there was no Wikipedia article on it. So I tried to capture the importance of baseball in Jewish American history and then used a criteria which is strictly for players who identified as Jewish during ("during" being the key word) their MLB careers. I tried to find as many reliable sources as I could and highlighted the star players of their times. I also took inspiration and instruction from similar MLB lists which are featured lists. I hope I did it justice. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I only have time to look at the lead at the moment, but this is what I got on that:
• No list should start with "the following is a list". Look at other FLCs and find a way to write a more engaging opening.
• "players who have at least one Jewish parent" => "players who have or had at least one Jewish parent"
• Don't have bullet points in the lead, convert this into prose
• "The criteria for this list has" - "criteria" is a plural word so it should be "have"
• Per MOS:NOBOLD, bold should not be used to identify entries meeting certain criteria. Use a symbol like {{doubledagger}} instead
• "an virtual museum" => "a virtual museum"
• "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax being considered" => "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, being considered"
• More later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, thank you. Will be adding your suggestions ASAP. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Right, I've rewritten the lede with your suggestions. Please give feedback whenever you can. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "with Lip Pike being the first one ever" => "with Lip Pike being the first"
• "20th-century" doesn't need a hyphen
• "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their name" => "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their names"
• "at the rampant in the country and the league" => "at the time rampant in the country and the league"
• "and the alleged involvement Jewish crime boss" => "and the alleged involvement of Jewish crime boss"
• "Greenberg played in Detroit which was home to Father Coughlin" => "Greenberg played in Detroit, which was home to Father Coughlin"
• "an antisemitic Catholic priest who used his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary and Henry Ford who spread antisemitism through his newspaper" - don't think you need to say "antisemitic" three times in such quick succession. I think you can get away with losing the first one.
• "He faced antisemitism from opposing benches and fans" - yet another one there. Maybe change this one to "abuse"
• "The most famous of those would be Sandy Koufax" => "The most famous of those was Sandy Koufax"
• "While Greenberg and Koufax were the main subjects of the film, the movie also discusses" - these two verbs should be in the same tense
• In the table header, "Major League Team(s)" shouldn't have a capital T on the last word as it isn't a proper noun
• I don't think the teams column needs to be sortable, as it will only ever sort on the first team listed
• Almost all of the image captions in the gallery contain facts which aren't cited anywhere else in the article, so they will need citing here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, getting right on it. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  And good catch with the "antisemitic priest who spread antisemitism" - I didn't realize! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, I got the facts from citations next to each players' names. Its why I didn't add any to the captions. I thought it unnecessary. The rest of the changes you suggested I have done though. ETA: and, of course, the articles of each player list the facts in further detail as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  For 100% watertight referencing, I would duplicate whichever ref contains the fact in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, I've done so and also added a few more references. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, just a reminder that I added the references to the pictures too. Is there anything else that needs to be added or changed? Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}} becomes !scope=row |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}}. 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 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN, I've edited the tables as you have said. No questions but please check if I did it correctly. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, looks good. --PresN 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "existance" to "existence".
• "late 19th-century and" to "late 19th-century, and".
• "This includes players who converted during or before their careers or players who have or had at least one Jewish parent and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." to "This includes players who converted during or before their careers, and players who have or had at least one Jewish parent, and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." Also I'm unsure if the sentence should start with "This" or "These".
• "rampant antisemitism and remain" to "rampant antisemitism, and remain"
• "It also talks about Jewish immigration" to "talked", since that is the tense used in the previous sentence.
• I think you can stop sorting of the notes columns. You should definitely make the Refs columns unsortable.
• The image captions in the gallery aren't full sentences and so don't need full-stops.
• See if you replace "winningest" with something else.
• Run IABot on the article.
• That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824, done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Billboard Middle-Road Singles number ones of 1963

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's my third nomination from the history of Billboard's chart for the gentler side of popular music. How gentle? Well in this year an actual NUN reached number one! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 12 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing except a suggestion to consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case there's any references changed in the future and the person isn't as careful about date formatting as you are. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, I have added that template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Well, I have to complain about something. "by Belgian vocalist the Singing Nun, who" doesn't work for me; how about this? "by the Singing Nun, a Belgian vocalist who". - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Prose: see above. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dank: - thanks for your review, I have tweaked the bit about the Singing Nun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, I just saw the PD notice in the image ... now I have no problem with it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Dank: - I changed it for a different image anyway.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• with the only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing. -- I think "the" here should be dropped.
  • Not sure which "the" you mean, but removing either would make the sentence grammatically incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  • @ChrisTheDude: My bad should have been specific. I meant to say if it should state as with only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing or some tweaking like with only one of their songs appearing on the listing. Hopefully the makes sense. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  • • @Pseud 14: Neither of those would work, as that wording would indicate that they had several songs on the listing but only one got to number one, which is not the point being made. The point being made is that the song in question was literally the only one they ever had on the chart. The wording has to stay as it is, otherwise the sentence becomes incorrect...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

    • Fair point. Nothing further then. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• "The End of the World" should sort with "E"
• That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• The Peter, Paul and Mary image uses px size, switch to "upright"
• Images have alt text.
• Images are appropriately tagged and licensed as PD.
• Images have succinct captions and relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: - fixed other than as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Somehow missing the table caption. --PresN 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• @PresN: - hard to believe that after all this time I can still forget that!  :-P Added now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of accolades received by Hacksaw Ridge

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded the article over the last few days, and it follows the same structure as many other current FLs. My Interstellar nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction, Garfield's performance, as well as" => "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction and Garfield's performance, as well as"
• All the notes with the exception of A are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both done! Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  In the table, where there is a rowspan for a header cell, the scope should be "rowgroup". e.g. the rowspan for "AACTA Awards". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Changed. Also changed for the Interstellar list since it hadn't been brought up. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 4 – Add |location=Sydney to differentiate between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) at a glance
• Ref 22 – Missing date of December 11, 2016 (currently the access date uses this date as well, possibly mistakenly so)
• Ref 21 – Missing date of January 5, 2017
• Ref 26 – Missing date of January 10, 2017
• Ref 37 – Replace The Houston Chronicle with Houston Chronicle
• Ref 46 – Missing date of January 28, 2017
• Ref 47 – Missing date of February 2, 2017
• Ref 52 – Missing date of February 11, 2017

That's what I've got. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh. Thank you for catching those, I'm surprised I missed that many. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – The two lead images have free licensing and alt text, along with an appropriate caption. No issues in this respect. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of time was spent by several editors to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, including properly formatting the tables so that they meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, so that tables display the most up-to-date information with proper sourcing, and so that the formatting matches the formatting used on other quality figure skating articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• At just two sentences, the lead is much shorter than is expected for a FL. It could do with bulking out with a very brief overview of the history of the event and some key points about the people and nations with most medals. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have expanded the lead per your suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I too have a drive-by comment. You're missing row and columns scopes in a number of tables, which are crucial for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was sure I had properly formatted all of the tables. I will of course double-check all of them this afternoon and make any appropriate corrections. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey man im josh, are you referring to the medals by country tables? If so, that’s a template and I wouldn’t know how to change its parameters. The only thing I could do is render it as a table, which I, of course, can do if necessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  On review, yes, it looks like it's the medals by country tables. I'm actually seeing the same thing with all of medal tables under Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games. Is there an exception or are the medal tables formatted in a way that's already accessible @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming we're talking about the {{Medals table}} under e.g. Total medal count by nation, it's fine- the're no visual indication, but the colscopes and rowscopes (using the Nation column cells) are set by the template, I verified in the html. --PresN 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's good to know, I'll make a mental note of that. Thanks PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

List of cities in New Brunswick

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I like New Brunswick. I found this nice little list full of eight cities in need of major work, so I've completely rewritten the introduction, made a full revamp to the list and made any necessary updates. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "New Brunswick saw a reduction from 104 municipalities to 77" - New Brunswick isn't alive so can't see anything, so suggest "The number of municipalities in New Brunswick was reduced from 104 to 77"
• "Municipalities in New Brunswick, of which cities, as well as towns and villages are referred to as, are included" - rather mangled wording here. Would be better as "Cities, towns and villages in New Brunswick are referred to as municipalities and all are included"
• "in Local governments in the province" - no reason for capital L, mid-sentence
• "has wards in their municipal governments" => "has wards in its municipal governments"
• "has a "Hybrid" council type," - don't think the H needs to be a capital (also in the note)
• "As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick is Moncton" => As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick was Moncton" (2021 was three years ago so present tense is not appropriate)
• "and the smallest is Campbellton" - as above
• "Additionally, Saint John is the first incorporated city in future New Brunswick and Canada overall" => "Additionally, Saint John was the first incorporated city in the future New Brunswick and Canada overall"
• That's what I got. Nice work on expanding the article. I have been to New Brunswick but I don't recall if I liked it as it was over 40 years ago :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, and  Done. B3251 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Second one still needs doing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Missed that one, whoops.  Done B3251 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

At 8 entries, this seems a little short to be a featured list, but more importantly, it's also unclear why it exists at all given List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FL) exists. It's the first 8 rows of that table, with the council type/size added (and different incorporation dates, for some reason). How is this not just a content fork? --PresN 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair question to ask, though I am not the one who created the article so I'm unsure if I could answer it. All that I've pretty much done is do as much as I possibly could to expand onto the article so it stands better as a standalone list, though both articles (list for cities & list for municipalities) were created/promoted as FLC through the same editor. Would it be worth pinging them to ask? Furthermore, would it be beneficial to include former cities to provide leeway for more content to be included into the article? B3251 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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; you have them for most, but they're missing on the second row of headers.
• 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. || [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]] becomes !scope=row | [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]]. 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 20:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   Done Screen-reader caption, !scope="col" added to second row of headers, !scope=row added to primary cells (city names).

  I've made the fixes with some additional changes with the sortbottom classes at the bottom that may/may not have needed to have been made. How did I do? @PresN B3251 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good from that standpoint, though see my comment above. --PresN 00:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Very well done list, but isn't this just a fork of List of municipalities in New Brunswick? Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Mattximus, please refer to my reply to PresN above regarding this. I don't think I could give a clear answer on this as I'm not the creator of the list, I just did as much as I could to improve/expand onto it and make it more standalone-specific for cities rather than being what information was already provided in List of municipalities in New Brunswick. This list article was created by the same editor who co-nominated the municipalities list with you, so I proposed pinging them here to hear from them. If you would like to possibly give your opinion, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 15 – Please downcase to title case instead of all caps

Source review passes. Support (without taking into consideration whether this should have been split). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not get a response on here, but I do see that you downcased the reference appropriately. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [9].

---

List of accolades received by The Last of Us (TV series)

Nominator(s): ZooBlazer and Rhain ☔ (he/him)

The Last of Us was the first live action video game adaptation to receive major awards consideration, and with most of the nominations resolved (for now), I figured it would be a good time for a FLC nomination to make sure the article would be ready for TFL when season 2 debuts next year. -- ZooBlazer 00:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "escorting immune teenager" - if it's relevant to the plot (I don't know, I've never seen it) that Ellie is "immune" then you should probably say what she is immune to

  Done

• Woodard is shown in different places in the table as Keivonn Woodard and Keivonn Montreal Woodard

  I'll wait and see what Rhain wants to do about the situation. I'm not sure if it's best to go off what he was nominated as or if we just go off his credited name.

  @Rhain: What do you want to do about how we write out Woodard's name in the table? -- ZooBlazer 00:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  The table follows whatever name he is nominated under, but I'd be happy to use his full name every time for consistency if that's preferred. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• That's it, I think. Awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Responded to both points. Thanks for the comments! -- ZooBlazer 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I guess the name thing isn't a big deal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• The first season, based on the 2013 game, follows Joel (Pedro Pascal) -- I would link the first instance of "first season" and then "second season".
• That's all I could find. Great work on this list. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review : Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Thanks for the comments and IR! I linked the seasons as you suggested. -- ZooBlazer 19:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Don't hide links to specific ceremonies as the overall award (for instance, "Screen Actors Guild Awards" shouldn't link to 30th Screen Actors Guild Awards)
  • In general, I'd link to the overall award (e.g., Screen Actors Guild Awards) except when referring to specific accomplishments (e.g., "a leading eight wins at the 75th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards"). This should make it easier to update if it is further recognized at those awards in the future.
• What is the default order for listing awards? It looks like you've placed the categories it won at the top instead of just listing them alphabetically or by "importance" (admittedly a nebulous concept). If it wins different awards in a later season the orders will change, which would be confusing.
  • Example: Under the SAG Awards, it's more typical to list Male Actor and Female Actor together and Stunt Ensemble further down. (See List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones as one example.)
• If The Last of Us: Inside the Episode is included at the PGA Awards, also add its Emmy nom
  • Creative Arts dates should be updated to January 6–7, 2024 accordingly
• Remove episode submissions for lead acting at the Emmys (not listed with the official nominations like other categories)
• I appreciate the "Multiple awards and nominations", but it's a lot of work to keep it updated correctly. I didn't check the crew table but the episode table has incorrect totals right now. I'm not saying they have to go – if you're willing to check everything to get it right that's fine by me!

In fairness, this is all really nitpicky – I just think it's worth getting it really polished now to set a good precedent if further awards are added for later seasons. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments—"nitpicky" is my middle name, so I appreciate it. You're right that the categories are generally ordered by winners, then by "importance"; I think this would be fine to continue with future seasons, but if you're opposed then it can be adjusted. I disagree with removing leading episode submissions; it's pertinent (and sourced) information, and is done elsewhere too, but let me know if you feel strongly otherwise. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the sorting should be redone to help with WP:FLCR #4 – while there is a structure to it, it's not something readers may be used to. I'm personally not a fan of the episode submissions, but since they are sourced here they can stay. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually think sorting by winners first has an easier and more logical structure per the criteria, but I understand your point (especially regarding future seasons), so I've restructured accordingly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Different item, how are you getting the totals for the episode summary table? For instance, when I search for "When You're Lost in the Darkness", I get 5 hits in the table, but it says there are 7 nominations. Maybe you're counting guest acting roles that don't specify episodes, which... I'm personally a bit skeptical on, but I wanted to confirm that's what you're doing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good question. You're right about guest acting nominations; in the case of the first episode, it's Nico Parker, who only starred in that episode. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Source reliability looks okay throughout. There is one formatting issue to address: refs 38, 45, 55 and 70 have all caps in their titles that should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Giants2008 Fixed all four instances. -- ZooBlazer 21:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • In that case, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

List of World Heritage Sites in Morocco

Nominator(s): Tone 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Morocco has nine World Heritage Sites, including Fez, Marrakesh, and Meknes. There are 13 sites on the tentative list. The source is in French so the names are translated, which I believe is acceptable, given that the reference provides the original name. Otherwise, standard style. The nomination for Venezuela is seeing some support so I am adding a second nomination. Tone 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "Fez was founded in the 9th century and reached its apogee as the capital of the Marinid Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries and it remained the capital of the country until 1912." to "Fez was founded in the 9th century, reached its apogee as the capital of the Marinid Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries and remained the capital of the country until 1912."
• wikilink "Medieval period".
• "Marrakesh was founded in the 1070s as the capital of the Almoravid and later Almohad dynasty until the 13th century when the capital was moved to Fez." to "Marrakesh was founded in the 1070s as the capital of the Almoravid dynasty. It later became the capital of the Almohad dynasty, until the 13th century when the capital was moved to Fez."
• wikilink "motif".
• "making Volubilis one of the richest sites in North Africa." to "richest sites for archaeology in North Africa".
• "Located south of the Strait of Gibraltar, " to "just south" OR "x km south".
• "it was rebuilt by refugees expelled by the Spanish and" - add a comma after "Spanish".
• "In the following centuries, it served as the meeting point between Morocco and Spain" - what does this mean?
• "built a fortified colony of Mazagão" to "built the fortified colony of Mazagão"
• "including walls and bastions, were build.": to "buit".
• "It houses a great chandelier": repeated use of the word "great". Maybe replace this instance with one of the dimensions of the chandelier (weight or width/diameter).
• wikilink "stratigraphic".
• "arranged in a form of circular steps" to "arranged in the form of circular steps"
• "Water sources support growing of date palms, there ": Add an "and" after the comma.
• "The string of oases is located along the Wad Noun in the length of 30 km" to "... Wad Noun, across a length of ...". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all, thanks! Tone 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The area is rich numerous animal and plant species that live in arid climates" => "The area is rich in numerous animal and plant species that live in arid climates"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed, that was easy :) Thanks! Tone 08:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

List of current United States governors

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I stumbled across this list a few months ago and was shocked to see it was almost completely uncited despite being well-trafficked with tens of thousands of monthly views. I have cleaned up the list and added supporting text where needed and feel that it is a viable FL in its current state. This is my first foray into a political FL, so any advice is appreciated. SounderBruce 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "Four U.S. territories". This can be shortened to "Four territories".
  • Fixed.
• I'm not sure it's correct to say that "Four U.S. territories have Democratic governors" when Puerto Rico has a governor from the "New Progressive Party". Can this be reworded?
  • Reducing count to three; I think the next sentence sufficiently explains the Puerto Rico situation.
• "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association as well as the partisan Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association." This reads as all governors being part of the Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association. I recommend rewording to "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association as well as either the partisan Democratic Governors Association or Republican Governors Association.
  • Reworked entirely to flow better by explaining the NGA first.
• I'm not sure the sectioning layout works here. The first paragraph under "State governors" mentions territory governors as well. Do those governor statistics in the second paragraph include territory governors? Maybe the first paragraph should be moved up to the lead.
  • Moved up the paragraph that applies to both state and territorial governors; the second paragraph is solely about state governors per the source.
• Starting a sentence with a number should be avoided as per MOS:NUMBERS.
  • Reworded.
• "46 of the governors are non-Hispanic white, while one is Hispanic, one is Black, and one is Native American." Is this meant to add up to 50?
  • Fixed, the source mentions two Hispanic governors.
• I don't think National Governors Association should be linked in the see also section as it is already linked earlier in the article.
  • Removed.
• I don't think the "Prior public experience" column should be sortable.
  • Removed sortability.
• And the federal district mayor table shouldn't be sortable at all.
  • Removed sortability.
• Wyoming Treasurer could be red linked. (surprising that doesn't already have an article)
  • Added link to an existing redirect.
• The National Governors Association is explained in two different paragraphs: the second and third paragraphs. I would remove any mention of the National Governors Association from the second paragraph.
  • Merged the mentions.

Sourcing

• I don't think source 5 mentions the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, which makes that unsourced.
  • Added a note and source.
• Much of the prior political experience column is unsupported by source 13.
  • Moved the citations to individual profiles to support this information on a row-by-row basis.
    • That's a good idea, but I've noticed that the individual profiles don't always support the prior political experience. For example, the source for J. B. Pritzker doesn't mention the Illinois Human Rights Commission or the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign, and the source for Dan McKee doesn't mention he was mayor of Cumberland or on the Cumberland Town Council.
      • Tossed out the positions I couldn't find in the re-added experience chart or the blurbs on the NGA website. The territorial governors now have additional citations where needed.
        • There are still some problems with the sourcing of the prior political experience: Sources don't support that Sarah Huckabee Sanders was a deputy press secretary, that Gretchen Whitmer was Minority Leader of the Michigan Senate, that Michelle Lujan Grisham was on the Bernalillo County Commission, that Roy Cooper was Majority Leader of the North Carolina Senate, or that Spencer Cox was a member of the Sanpete County Commission.
• The source URL for Kathy Hochul is wrong.
  • @Steelkamp: Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed the issues you've raised. SounderBruce 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @SounderBruce: I've added two more comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Steelkamp: Replied above. Thanks again for the review. SounderBruce 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
        • @SounderBruce: Since I don't want us to be stuck in a fix loop, can you go over the sourcing for the prior political experience column again, and then I will perform some more spot checks. Steelkamp (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Review from Hurricanehink

Ooh, I had to come here all the way from my California FLC!

• Is it worth indicating that five states don't have a lieutenant governor? I suppose the "most" works, but it led me wondering, and then I forgot I was supposed to be reviewing this. Having that information available would save that wiki hole.
  • Added.
• "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association, which lobbies the federal government for governors' interests. " - the NGA was already mentioned in the second lead paragraph, so I think its reference in the 3rd lead paragraph should be moved, keeping both mentions of NGA together
  • Fixed, that was duplicated during the move up from the next section.
• "The average age of governors at the time of their inauguration was 59.28 years old." - considering every age is otherwise listed as a whole year, I suggest rounding this to the whole year. You could always add "about" before 59.
  • Rounded.
• Could you add how long Inslee has been governor, how old Ivey and Sanders are?
  • As the years are included for all three, I believe it would not be necessary per MOS:CURRENT.
• "two are Hispanic, one is Black, and one is Native American." - since there are so few, what do you think about indicating who these all are? Otherwise, I have no idea who the Native American governor is (not Hawaii like I thought for a second). Again, I went down a wiki hole when I should have been reviewing this list.
  • Not entirely sure this is needed, since the source states it outright.
    • The source might state it, but someone coming to the article might go away from this article searching for that information. That's something that stands out to me as something that seems missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Just a general spotcheck, but where are the references for the previous careers? The ref for Ivey didn't mention her being state auditor.
  • Should be fixed now.
    • As an extension of the spotchecks and references, I notice there's an entire column, but some of the references are under the section for "prior public experience." Is there a reason the references aren't under the reference column? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• How many governors are term-limited? (and thus lame ducks)
  • Great idea, I've added explanations of term limits. Listing the lame ducks would be difficult and likely irrelevant except for a very short period before elections, so I have decided not to add them.

The list seems pretty good, so I hope none of these are too difficult. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay. I have replied to your comments above. SounderBruce 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, my only two outstanding comments are identifying the Hispanic/Black/Native American governors (since there are so few), and a question about where the references go. I appreciate all of your other fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I think you may have missed this reply to your FLC, so I wanted to ping you to it just in case. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

List of New England Revolution managers

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this list of managers for my favorite team, the New England Revolution. I think this meets the criteria for a FL- it's comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. I mostly followed on the List of Arsenal F.C. managers for formatting, so this list includes prose overviewing the managerial history of the club, as well the list itself. Thanks in advance for reviewing!

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made larger
• "a ten-year run from May 2002 to October 2011" - pedantically, that's not ten years. Ten seasons would be accurate though, I believe.
• "honors won, which included a US Open Cup win in 2007 and a SuperLiga win in 2008, as well as four unsuccessful trips to the MLS Cup final" - losing the final isn't an honour. I would suggest retooling this to "honors won, having led the team to a US Open Cup win in 2007 and a SuperLiga win in 2008; during his tenure the Revolution also made four unsuccessful trips to the MLS Cup final"
• "Steve Nicol, a former Liverpool FC player" - any reason why you show the "FC" here but you didn't for Arsenal or Man U?
• "their first playoff victory, which was against the Chicago Fire)" - there's no reason for that closing bracket there
• "the club elevated Steve Nicol (current assistant and former interim coach) to be the head coach" => "the club elevated Nicol from assistant coach to head coach"
• Nicol photo caption needs a full stop
• "The 2007 season would bring a first: Nicol led the Revolution to a trophy: the 2007 U.S. Open Cup final," - double colon looks weird. Maybe "The 2007 season would bring a first as Nicol led the Revolution to a trophy, the 2007 U.S. Open Cup final,"

• I kept the second colon, othwerwise the sentence would read as if the Revs beat FC Dallas "in" the trophy, not in the final. Brindille1 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• "ending a 10-year run with the team" - see earlier comment
• "First trophies under Steve Nicol (2002-11)" - when it's a date range, both years should be shown in full, not abbreviated
• "The next season, the team missed playoffs" => "The next season, the team missed the playoffs"
• "Honours" is spelt the British way in the table header
• No need to repeat Arena's full name in note d - you don't do that in notes b or c
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @ChrisTheDude, I've addressed your feedback. Brindille1 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• With the current fixed width of 100em, the table goes off the screen of my desktop. It looks fine in previews without this restriction.
• Are the words "manager" and "coach" interchangeable? Maybe add a line or two of explanation for this OR consistently use the word "manager" everywhere.
• I converted 2 redlinks into redirects. Please do the same if you plan to add more.
• "the club won the Supporters' Shield for the first time in history," - this kind of implies that they won it again later. Please reword.
• "He would resign on September 9, saying" to "He resigned on ..."
• "was removed from his role three days later after Revolution players" to "was removed from his role three days later, after Revolution players"
• Put in an {{update after}} at the end of the "2019–present" section as a reminder to update the section periodically.
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MPGuy2824, I've updated according to your suggestions. Brindille1 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. Looks good. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. You'll want to add a "(pictured in <year>)" to the Frank Stapleton image caption since it was taken much before his stint as the manager. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! Brindille1 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fresh from the oven and hot on the heels of its Eastern Pacific counterpart, which was recently promoted, I present you with the timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season. The season was quiet but devastating, with two storms (Bret and Gert) each claiming over 100 lives, in addition to several other storms that caused disastrous flooding where they hit. Fortunately, the season ended much earlier than average; the final two months had no activity whatsoever. This timeline was merged in 2011, but I've worked to significantly expand on the original version. Not only do I think this is sufficient to stand in mainspace, but I believe it is up to par with the other timelines I've submitted to FLC over the past few months (including an ongoing candidacy that already has a couple supports). I will try to address any concerns as promptly as I can. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• June 2: wikilink "gale force".

Looks good otherwise. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks MPGuy2824! Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Atmospheric pressures are listed to the nearest -- worth linking atmospheric pressure here in the lead, since it is also linked in the body.
• That's all I could find. Another well-structured and well-written list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Pseud 14 :) I've added the wikilink per your suggestion. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review : Passed

• Images used have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed and from reliable sources. Maps with trackers used are derivatives from NASA, and storm images are taken from NOAA
• Images have succinct captions, relevant, and provide context for its use in the timeline. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Billboard Tropical Albums number ones from the 1980s

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

With enough supports and both the image and source passed for List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s, I am now ready to tackle on the FLC for this list! If slow ballads aren't your thing, how about some "hot sauce" to spice up your life? Let me know in the comments about anything I missed prior to nominating it. Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there a rule in place for when to do these lists per-decade instead of per-year? ChrisTheDude's songs lists are all per-year, but your album lists are per-decade, so I thought that was the divide, but I see in the navbox that the Regional Mexican Albums and Latin Rhythm Albums are also per-year. --PresN 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it depends on the number of items on the list. Like for example if I try doing this by year by year it would be very short list with maybe three albums at most. Erick (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

DBC

• "were the only the other" to "were the only other".
• "Luis Enrique had two number one albums on the chart with Amor y Alegría (1988) and Mi Mundo (1989), the latter culminated the decade": It would read better if the sentence ended at "(1989)".
• ref 65's url is for the week of August 8, 1987, but its title is June 27 and it is shown in the row for June 27. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Thanks for the quick review! I think I got everything you mentioned! Erick (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion on prose and table accessibility. My ref check was a random click and I've not done a full source review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "In June 1985, Billboard magazine established Tropical Albums (formerly designated as Tropical/Salsa Latin Albums)" - this doesn't really make sense, as it kinda states that the chart was established in 1985 but that prior to that it had been called something else, which it can't have been because it hadn't been established. I would suggest "initially called...." or "from 1985 until [whenever] called....."
• Lead image could be made larger
• "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was Innovations (1985) by El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico" - suggest changing this to "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico's Innovations (1985)" so that you don't say the act's name twice in immediate succession
• "El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico was also the musical act" - the word "musical" is redundant and can be removed, as all acts on the chart are by definition musical
• "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with three records to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart." => "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with more than two number ones on the Tropical Albums chart during the 1980s."
• "which spawned the single, "Ven, Devórame Otra Vez", and" - don't think those commas are needed
• "The latter culminated the decade" => "The latter was the final number one of the decade"
• Santiago image caption needs a comma after "era"
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! I got everything you mentioned. You ever think about doing #1 Albums for country/R&B albums as well? Erick (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Magiciandude: - I already worked all the country albums number 1 lists up to something approaching FL standard. Maybe I will nom some here one day :-) Oh, and support this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Source & image review from Dylan620

• Refs 5, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34 need archive URLs.
• Refs 9 and 88 have live URLs that are incorrectly marked as dead.
• Every ref in the table (13–131) should have the |url-access=subscription parameter added because the live URLs are only visible in full to Billboard Pro subscribers.
• Alt text in first image: "on a venue" reads weirdly to me, maybe "at" would work better?
• Alt text in Santiago image: from Santiago's point of view, the microphone is to his right, therefore he is holding the microphone in his right hand.
• Since the source for the Rodriguez image is a YouTube video, a timestamp should be added to either the source URL, the image description, or both.

Everything else looks good for the most part:

• A spot check of multiple sources verifies the information for which they are cited.
• All sources are reliable.
• No concerns with the alt text in the latter two images.
• All images have suitable captions.
• All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Except for the minor issue with the lede image, all images present in the listicle have suitable captions.
• Sourcing for each image (mostly) checks out.
• All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I'll get to work on this either Sunday or Monday. Erick (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good 😎👍 Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

As promised, I have completed everything you addressed by Monday. Let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Erick: Unfortunately, it looks like IABot reversed the fixes made on the second and third bullets, though I'm pleased with the rest of the changes. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the changes the IABot did for now. Erick (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Support – I did just add |url-status=live to a few URLs that were marked as dead, but that was the only minor issue left and I have no qualms with supporting now. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback on an older FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of general elections in Botswana

Nominator(s): ^48JCLTalk 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after reading all the criteria, I think this page is ready to become a featured list, based on the requirements. Also, this page is a vital article to Botswana, so it would be really great if this became featured, since the nation is not relevant for anything other than its democracy; and I don’t think most Botswana articles relating to democracy have much in it, other than maybe 2014 Botswana general election If not, I will continue improving this article. Hey in fact, this article might not need to exist, but no matter what, I will try to get this article as far as possible. There are, I think around 40 references, so this article is well-cited, in my opinion. ^48JCLTalk 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The most immediate thing is that the article's lead doesn't need its own subheading ("overview") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I removed that ^48JCLTalk 14:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

There is quite a bit that can be improved, so we'll have to do this in batches:

• There is a lot of information present in the table. Can you eliminate some of the columns that aren't as important? e.g. the exact number of votes won doesn't seem to be very important and can be eliminated. Even the vote share% isn't important since the number of seats won is what determines the governing party. Done
• The row for the upcoming election can be eliminated, until the results are in.not done
• Some of the columns need grouping (by winner, runner up). See Elections in India#History of Lok Sabha elections for how to do that. Done
• Pipe the various election wikilinks in the table to only show the election year. Done
• Replace the word "rule" with "govern" everywhere relevant in the lead. Done
• Explain in the lead how the president is selected after the results for the individual constituencies are announced. Done

That's it for now. Ping me when you've done these and I can give you more suggestions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I did most however I would like to keep the 2024 general election tab- also, for some reason the article feels empty now. 48JCL (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 48JCL (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The article feels empty - Yes, but cleaner. You don't want to overwhelm the reader with excessive information. I'll add the next batch of suggestions soon. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Next batch of suggestions:

• You have a lot of short paragraphs in the lead. Merge them into 2 (or at most 3) paragraphs.Done
• If voter turnout % is available for most/all the elections, then that would be a good data point to add to the table.Done
• I'd suggest that you move all the refs to their own cell at the end of each row, since there are so many of them for each election.Done
• Replace TBD with a shortish phrase which indicates that the 2024 election is set for the future.Done
• Add some information to the lead about the changes in the election before and after independence.Kinda done ig
• I'd suggest that you replace "Unknown" for the 1961 election with "NA", if that's the right phrase to use. Done

Again, ping me when you are done with these. I'll be off-wiki for a while, so hopefully another reviewer can help you improve this list until then.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 there aren’t really many differences because universal suffrage was adopted before their independence in 1966 48JCL (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Each president is entitled to two" to "Each president is limited to two".
• It isn't clear why "seats available for election" is 57 for the 2019 election, while total seats is 65 (in the image). Add an explanation in the lead (or elsewhere, if that works better).
• "However, recent elections have shown that support for the BDP is declining, and opposition parties have started getting more support." You can remove the second part of the sentence (since it is a corollary to the first).
• "only 29.4% of people surveyed": I don't think you should use the word "only" here, since it is the larger of the two numbers in the sentence.
• Not a deal-breaker, but would it be possible to find enough references to start the article about the "European Advisory Council"?
• Reorder the refs for the 1969 election so that they are in ascending order. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Question

• Why does the number of seats won by the winner, runner-up and other parties not add up to the total number of seats available for the last two elections.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because of appointed and ex officio members. I’d love to add a footnote but I don’t know how to make it say [b] 48JCL (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude 48JCL (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  ight fixed it 48JCL (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "being the Botswana Democratic Party" - I think "namely the Botswana Democratic Party" would be better EnglishDone
• "It has had 13 formal" => "The country has had 13 formal"Done
• Remove the space between the comma and the reference after 1961 and after "5 years"Done
• Also, "5 years" should be "five years"
• "two 5-year terms." => "two five-year terms."Done
• Also, no need to say "former president" unless he is the current one, as that is obviousDone
• BDP should be linked just once in the lead, not three timesDone
• also, put BDP in brackets after the first useDone
• Also, why did the earlier ones not follow it? Did they just ignore it? Or did it in fact not exist yet?Done
• "showed that alone 29.4% of people" => "showed that only 29.4% of people"Done
• "would vote for a main opposition party, the UDC" - write the name in full and then put the abbreviation in bracketsDone
• You write runner-up both with and without a hyphen, pretty sure it should always have a hyphenDone
• NA should probably be n/aDone
• Put the footnotes above the mapsDone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would it be possible for you to support? 48JCL talk 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude 48JCL talk 20:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

what else? 48JCL (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude 48JCL (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• There's a space between the full stop and ref 7Done
• "Quett Masire created " - when was this and who was Quett Masire? This needs more context.Done
• "would vote for a main opposition party, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) if elections" - need a comma after (UDC)Done
• "In Botswana, the president of Botswana is selected" - first two words aren't needed. The president of Botswana is obviously select in Botswana rather than any other country Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Corrected. 48JCL 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Even more comments

• There's no reason at all for the first sentence to be in boldDone
• "then called the Bechuanaland Democratic Party" => "previously called the Bechuanaland Democratic Party"Done
• "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms, and Quett Masire, the second president" => "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms; Quett Masire, the second president"Done
• "Opinion polls in 2022 conducted by Afrobarometer showed that only 29.4% of people surveyed" => "Opinion polls in 2022 conducted by Afrobarometer showed that 29.4% of people surveyed"Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  alright, got more? 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  This feels like peer review now lol 48JCL (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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. ! rowspan="2" |Election becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" |Election. 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. |[[1961 Bechuanaland general election|1961]] becomes !scope=row |[[1961 Bechuanaland general election|1961]]. 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 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I’ll get to work on that. 48JCL 23:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN Is it good now? 48JCL 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  A couple column headers were missing scopes, but I fixed it. --PresN 02:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "is a landlocked country located in Southern Africa" → "located" is unnecessary, just simplify to "country in Southern Africa"Done
• "on September 30 1966" → missing comma after dateDone
• "Each president is entitled to two five-year terms" → I would recommend merging this sentence with the one that comes after itDone
• "Botswana,[10] created Botswana’s term limit[11] in 1997.[12]" → moving the references to the end of the sentence would make it far more readableDone
• "The first election in Botswana that adopted universal suffrage" → presumably the country adopted universal suffrage and then had the election, rather than the election itself having universal suffrageDone
• Presumably the BDP was called the Beuchanaland Democratic Party before the name change to Botswana? Also would be helpful to have something telling when that name change took place.Done
• "Every single election" → "Every election"Done
• "by the Botswana Democratic Party" → can abbreviate to BDP since you've already defined the abbreviation and used it in the first paragraphDone
• "recent elections have start to show" → "have started to show" or just "have shown"Done
• "Despite this, ahead of the 2024 election, they still hold 70% of all seats in the Parliament" → I know you're talking about the BDP, but "they" is still ambiguous here since the last thing you talked about was the opposition parties, not the BDPDone
• Not convinced that the line of prose in "Summary" is neededRemoved
• A key for the parties in the table would be helpful (especially since some aren't mentioned/defined in the prose
• Reference formatting could also use some cleanupDone

That's what I've got on first look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS All issues addressed. 48JCL 01:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I withdraw my nom?

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This list is nomination #10 for me in the series and, hopefully, will end up being #30 in the series to be promoted. Only two more nominations after this one and the 32-team series of first-round draft picks will be complete! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk)

Pseud 14

• Don Meredith, a quarterback out of SMU - Perhaps expand the name of the college in full and then bracket it.
• That's all I could find. Great work as ever! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed. AGF on self-published images.
• Images used are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the review and helpful feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Footnotes:

• Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen.
• Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE.
• Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong.
• Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row.
• Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [13]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article.
• Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious.

Other prose:

• "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links.
• Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC).
• Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again.

Sources:

• Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor.
• Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there).
• Source 23 is OK. Since it covers most of the table, I checked some entries at random, found no issues.
• Verified Source 25.
• Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68".
• Source 53, 54, 66, 70 are OK and factually verified. 66 is representative of a slew of similar ones.
• Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48.
• Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table.
• Source 30 is OK. Thank you for archiving it!
• Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce.
• Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea.

Table:

• Space before dagger: I think the dagger symbol should be separated from player names by a space to improve readability. Most milhist articles do this in their infoboxes. A counterargument might be that the asterisk doesn't need a space before it, and putting a space before one symbol and not the other might make it inconsistent. Maybe add spaces before both symbols?
• Double dagger in key is unused: the ‡ is in the table key but is never used. I'm pretty sure it should be next to Buck Buchanan's name in the table.

Toadspike (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking a break, I think this is enough for tonight. I think I'm about halfway through, I'll come back and finish up tomorrow. Toadspike (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I've completed my source review, please ping me once you've addressed all my concerns (or once you've explained why they're silly), or if you have questions. My largest lasting concern is making sure that the traded picks in the "Notes" column are listed next to the correct players. Reading my comments above, I found three such errors in the footnotes. You may want to check the few I haven't, especially the older ones not cited to Pro Football Reference (1993 and earlier). Toadspike (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes:

• Second use of "sixth-" in Footnote R is missing a hyphen. – Fixed.
• Footnote X ends with a double period ("Jr.."), I think only one is necessary but couldn't find it in the MOS. Update: found it at MOS:CONSECUTIVE. – Fixed, noted for future reference.
• Footnote D may have a factual error. Source 44 says that the pick "turned out to be Mo Moorman", but the table lists Moorman as the Chiefs' own pick and George Daney as the pick traded from the Oilers. Either the source is wrong (in which case another source is needed to prove it) or the table is wrong. – Blech. These situations come up way more often than I like where teams credit the wrong pick of a round. I've replaced that reference with one that does not explicitly call out that the pick turned out to be Mo Moorman.
• Footnote I, for the 1984 draft, incorrectly implies that the 5th overall pick (Bill Maas) was traded from the Rams – it should be in the row below for John Alt. The newspaper source (54) says that the 21st overall pick (John Alt) was the one traded. This is correctly written in the footnote, it is simply in the wrong row. – Fixed.
• Footnote F, the NFL source (49) states that the Chiefs got Matuszak and a third-round pick. The NYT source (48) makes no mention of the third-round pick. Pro Football Reference confirms that Kansas had two third-round picks in 1976 [14]. I'm assuming that the NYT article made an erroneous omission – I suggest moving source 49 ahead of 48, and possible removing source 48 entirely. The NFL page cites the Associated Press, perhaps you can find an AP article floating around somewhere to replace the NYT article. – Unfortunately, publications of the past had a tendency to focus and value only the first, and sometimes second, round selections, so I often see relevant but smaller details left out of RS. That's a big part of what's made some of these lists difficult. My understand is the the NFL page actually is not citing the Associated Press, but instead giving them credit for the image. Never the less, I agree the NYT's exclusion is an issue, and I've replaced that source.
• Footnotes S and Z have other footnotes in them. I think this is okay, I just find it hilarious. – I'm glad you found it amusing! I felt it the best way to consistently point towards the relevant trades when necessary.

Other prose:

• "1970 AFL–NFL merger" is not great (MOS:SEAOFBLUE). I am not sure that the season link is necessary here, since you're only discussing the merger, so I suggest removing it. If you prefer, you can try rewording it to separate the two links. – Reworded to "The Chiefs joined the NFL prior to the 1970 season as a result of the AFL–NFL merger."
• Clarifying the common draft: I think it would be helpful to readers to specify in which years the "common draft" took place. Currently, the article said this took place "As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966", which is a little confusing. They actually took place every year for three years, from 1967 to 1969. (This is in the sources already cited, plus a little bit of WP:CALC). – Hm. It just occurred to me, Common draft is not entirely accurate... The "common draft era" refers to anything from the 1967 onwards and is more of an informal name for "NFL draft" now. I've brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#"Common_draft_era". I won't bombard you with the sources that state this here, but this misunderstanding seems mostly related to the state of common draft as opposed to the text that the lead has written. Any thoughts on this with the clarification?
• Last lead paragraph: The jump from "did not draft a player" to "Four of the team's first-round picks" was a little jarring – I was expecting an explanation on why they didn't draft a player in the first round nine times. (I'm assuming they traded their picks to other teams?) Also, when Sayers is mentioned for the second time, only his last name is necessary. Technically the same goes for Buchanan, but since the two mentions are in different paragraphs I don't mind using his full name again. – I think the pivot from "did not draft" to "four of the team's first-round picks" isn't bad, but I'm open to suggestions. I think/hope the table speaks for itself in that aspect. I think it'd be difficult to summarize the reasons for this in the lead and that trying to do so would bloat it in a way that would make the article worse. Again though, I'm open to suggestions. Good catch on Sayers, second mention is now just "Sayers". I'd prefer to keep the unlinked full name for Buck Buchanan in the second paragraph, I think it's contextually an improvement over just listing the last name in this case.

Sources:

• Sources 19 and 20 are OK. Source 18 should probably use cite web or cite news instead of cite magazine – I couldn't find any indication that it was actually published in the magazine, and it's written "By B. Duane Cross, CNNSI.com". This is a very minor change, but it makes all the difference in the visual editor. – The standard, for whatever reason, is to cite Sports Illustrated as a magazine. If I swap it to anything else then Citation Bot would eventually switch it back. See here where it changed it to magazine (as it has across all my featured list nominations). With that said, you did make me realize/become aware of CNN/SI, which I've now changed the publisher to. Fun note, that wasn't automatically changed to magazine by Citation Bot, so that's neat.
• Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are OK. They do indeed back up everything in the image caption (finding where in the database it shows that he became starting QB in 2018 was a pain, but it's there). – I think it's a matter of familiarity with the sources. I do agree that, on first look, it can be difficult for people unfamiliar with the site to grasp it, but it does verify it.
• Source 45 should be titled "The 1968 NFL Draft" or "The 1968 NFL Draft Picks", not "68". – I feel mixed about this. The page title is just two digits, and I don't really love to editorialize titles to the subtitles.
• Source 49 verified. See Footnote F above for concern about source 48. – Addressed above.
• Source 28 doesn't explicitly say that Gale Sayers was drafted by the Chiefs but signed for the Bears instead. Is it possible to find a source that explicitly says this in a sentence? I don't think combining information from two tables (sources 23 and 28) is unreasonable SYNTH but it would be nice to have this one clarified. Update: Source 26 says this explicitly, I suggest citing it in Sayers's row in the table. – Source 28 does say he was drafted by both teams, to the same degree that 26 does, but unfortunately it's one of those things tucked away in a tab lower down in the page. I did however just find a better source that I've since added which is more explicit in stating this fact.
• Sources 50 and 51 are OK. I am impressed by the level of digging and (permissible) SYNTH it took to put together these footnotes – the words "No. 38 overall" require both sources and some addition to deduce. – Thank you! This feels like how I had to do way too many trades! I wish more sources explicitly stated the pick numbers (and were correct when doing so). Thank goodness for "from Kansas City" lol.
• Sources 26 and 27 verified. 27 could be retitled "Kansas City Chiefs: Team Greats" for specificity. This has to be deduced from the URL though, so maybe it isn't a good idea. – Yeah, I try to avoid editorializing titles whenever possible.

Really there was only one instance where the note was in the wrong place, which I'm quite grateful you caught. Thank you very much for the thorough review, I hope I've addressed all of your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes:  Resolved

Other prose:

• Adjacent links  Resolved
• Common draft: Thanks for the explanation. My revised suggestion adding the word 'began':

As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft".

This small change should make the situation clear enough and technically correct.

• Last lead paragraph: I now agree that more prose isn't needed here. Sayers' name has been corrected.  Resolved

Sources:

• Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter.
• Otherwise  Resolved

Table:

• Have you had a chance to look at this section yet? There is one minor formatting change (really up to you whether you choose to add a space or not), and the wrong symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name (should be ‡, not †).

Incorrect note: I goofed in summarizing my own comments, this is now  Resolved

Toadspike (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Toadspike, I actually missed the table when I copy and pasted your feedback. I've fixed the symbol next to Buck Buchanan's name, that was definitely an error to use † instead of ‡. As for the spacing, I've personally always felt that the symbol right next to the name was preferable over the space, though I understand it's a preference kind of thing. It's something I'll mull over and maybe come back and do in the future, but for the time being, I don't think it's an improvement.

• As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues began holding a multiple round "common draft". – I've made this change and applied it across all of the lists I've worked on for first-round picks.
• Editorializing titles: Source 27 can be left as-is. However, I still think source 45 should be retitled "The 1968 NFL Draft", which is a huge heading at the top of the webpage. I don't think it's editorializing to use that as the title. "68" seems to just be some sort of web parameter. – I don't looove it, but I get it. I went ahead and changed it.

I hope that I've now addressed everything @Toadspike. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for the very quick response. All of my concerns have been addressed, source review passed. I support this FLC. Toadspike (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Billboard Middle-Road Singles number ones of 1962

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Following on from my nomination for List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1961, here's the list for the following year. The chart changed its name during 1962 and it seemed most appropriate to use the name under which it ended the year as the article title. An editor on the talk page suggested it should in fact be the name under which it spent the greater portion of the year, but then never really followed up on that. If anyone else agrees, let me know...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "of an appropriate style and ranking them according to their placings": Add a comma after "style". Also, consider replacing "placings" with "positions".
• Add a wikilink for "early 1960s UK jazz revival", if there is something appropriate.
• The table is missing its caption.

That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 13 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Literally couldn't find anything to critique, so you beat me there this time. Though I do recommend adding the {{Use mdy dates}} template to the article in case any references are added in the future. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh: - done! Thanks for your support! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• "I Can't Stop Loving You" and "You Don't Know Me" spent a total of eight weeks in the top spot, the most for any artist. "I Can't Stop Loving You" also reached number one on the Hot 100 -- perhaps to avoid repetition, it could be written as the most for any artist; the former single also reached number one on the Hot 100...
• That's all I could find prose-wise. Great work as usual! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
• Images have succinct captions. For conciseness though, suggest minor caption edit: both from his album Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music.
• Images are relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [16].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Peter Capaldi

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I belive that it meets the FL criteria. I created the forked off of the aritcle Peter Capaldi. The table was all ready sourced I replaced bad sources, cut non-notable inclusions and constructed the lead. This is part of a FT that I wish to complete. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. Done
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.Done
• One cell of every row (the primary cell) should be a header cell. In this case it would be the Award cell.
• 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. | AwardName becomes !scope=row | AwardName (on its 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.
• Additionally, you have two typos in the lead section: "appearnces" and "trough".Done-MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey so I'm trying to implement the fourth thing you mentioned but it's not properly working, any idea how to fix it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at fixing it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you've solved it. Thanks, I think thats everything adressed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There's a stray "1" under the image caption for some reason Done
• "From 1993 through 1995" - as Capaldi is British then British English should be used and in the UK we do not say "from [date] through [date]". Change this to "Between 1993 and 1995" Done
• " Capaldi won a GQ Man of the Year Award for "TV personality of the Year" award" - repetition of "award" doesn't read brilliantly Done
• BAFTA Scotland is linked twice in the lead, also the capitalisation is different each time Done
• Something seems to have gone awry with the scopes of many of the entries, as the first column is centrally aligned and in bold.

  Confused as what to do here. Isnt it meant to be like that given that its the primary cell?

  At the point when I typed that, about a third of the cells in the column were centre-aligned and bolded and the rest were not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's also two rows where the columns seem to be erroneously shifted to the left Done
• Works which start with "the" should sort based on the next word in the title Done
• Note a needs a full stop Done
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I belive I have addressed everything you've mentioned. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Two entries in the table include "AudioFile Earphones Award" as the award while a third uses "Awards" – Please make these consistent Done
• Should it be "Atlantic Film Festival Award" or "Atlantic International Film Festival" – the target for this entry is Atlantic International Film Festival Done
• The entries for Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life appear to be backwards, listing that under the category column instead of the work column, with the appropriate categories listed in the work column
• RTS Scotland links to Royal Television Society, still worth linking to the redirect in the table in my opinion in case it ever gets turned into its own article Done
• Some of the references include links to BAFTA as the publisher. I think, considering the target when those are clicked on, these should include British Academy of Film and Television Arts as the publisher instead of the acronym. Done
• Ref 14, 31, and 41 – Wikilink Royal Television Society Done
• Ref 2 – Wikilink The Hollywood Reporter Done
• Ref 3, 4, and 5 – All use The Herald as the publisher, but ref 3 does not include a wikilink Done'
• Refs 6, 23 – Please down case this to title case instead of all caps Done
• Ref 18 – Use "TheWrap" instead of "The Wrap" Done
• Refs 21, 25, and 27 – Wikilink Awards Daily Done
• Ref 26 – Wikilink IndieWire Done
• Ref 29 – Use and wikilink to Chlotrudis Society for Independent Films instead of Chlotrudis Done
• Refs 15, 35 - Dead link (redirects to site's main page) Done
• Refs 4, 5, 16, 17, 22, 46 – These links are redirected once you access them, please bypass the redirects Done
• It looks like 8 of the links do not have archive links, please fix this if you can Done
• Date formatting in a number of these references are inconsistent, consider adding the {{Use dmy dates}} template to the top of the article under the short description Done

That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: - just to chime in.....it would actually be {{Use dmy dates}} because we do things differently in the UK :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

D'oh, good catch, thanks for that Chris! I've fixed my comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [17].

---

List of chief justices of India

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Another biographical list for me: Maurice Linford Gwyer to D. Y. Chandrachud. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility and added references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "However this convention has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges. Also, in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna." - I'd suggest revising this to "This convention has been broken twice: in 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges and in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna."
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for the "bar" heading? What this means is probably obscure to many people
• "Appointed by" columns don't sort correctly
• Footnote a isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Do you feel that the "Date appointed as judge" in the second table is an important enough column? Removing it would lead to both tables having the same columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Don't mind either way. Looking at it, though, I notice that Harilal Jekisundas Kania was apparently appointed as a judge and Chief Justice on the same day, and had apparently served as Chief Justices of the Federal Court of India for over two years before becoming a judge - is this correct? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  That cell shows the date on which they were appointed as Supreme Court judges. Most of them were judges in lower courts before that date. This obviously looks weird for the first Chief justice, as he was also the Chief justice of the preceding court. In any case, I've removed the column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Forgot to ping in my earlier reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, two more things I missed earlier: the "acting" entry in the first column of the first table doesn't sort correctly, and in both tables the image column should not be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: No need to apologize: I seemed to have missed a lot of things in this list. I've fixed the additional two issues that you've pointed out. If you find more issues, please feel free to point them out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Z1720

• Many images use the source link to the current list, but it should link to the former list. Please update these in the images.
• Almost all of the images need to be reviewed to ensure that they meet the GODL-India licence. If you are not the uploader of the images you can look at them and mark them as reviewed.
• Per MOS:ALT, alt text should be added to the images.

Comments posted above. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I've added the alt texts to all the images and fixed the source url in the images that seem to be from the page showing former chief justices. I don't have the relevant permissions on commons to review image licenses. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns have been resolved. I can support based on the image review. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Ref 4 – Change "Indian Express" to "The Indian Express", based on The Indian Express being the target
• Ref 4 – Link is subscription based, please note this
• Ref 5 – Change "Times of India" to "The Times of India", based on The Times of India being the target
• Ref 6 – Authors missing
• Ref 7 – Add wikilink to The Hindu
• Ref 8 – Missing a publisher
• Refs 32, 32, 50, 51, 56, 57 – No access date and not archived
• Ref 58 – Wikilink The Times of India
• The note under the table, change "Acting" to "acting"

That's what I've got. Please ping me once you've made changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I've replaced ref 4 with one that doesn't require a subscription, and ref 8 with a better one. Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Version reviewed
• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Ref 8 is not linked. Seems to be the same source as Ref 10.
• Spotchecks on 15 sources OK. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: I've replaced ref 8 with a different one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Passes source review. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Older nominations

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [18].

---

List of forest-inventory conifers in Canada

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Licensing information for the images (there are a lot of them) will be up shortly on the list talk page. The point of the list is so that people can enjoy learning some basic information about some trees that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I concede that Canada doesn't have a monopoly on forest inventories ... so if someone wants to propose and defend alternative inventories, I have no problem with that. I'd prefer to keep the current page title, but as a fall-back position, if necessary, the page could have a title that focuses only on Canada's national forest inventory of native trees. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Very excited to see a new plant list! Unfortunately, Dank, the trees are so pretty but that header is physically painful to look at. :( Most of the Notes column is empty space on my screen because the double images stretch the rows vertically; even just changing the notes column down to 15% and column 3 up to 7% (and dropping/shuffling some linebreaks) makes it much easier to read. If you don't want to do that, maybe find a way to shorten column 3 and 5's headers and stick more detail in footnotes?

Did that; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Also:

• The row headers need to start with !, not |, so !scope="row"
• The genera table is missing rowscopes altogether.

--PresN 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Done these last two I think, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Much better, thank you! --PresN 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• In the lead, you don't seem to use the serial comma (ie can be fashioned into posts, poles and railroad ties and used for plywood, wood veneer and construction framing), however, in the table an instance of summer months include ruby-crowned kinglets, ovenbirds, and Setophaga warblers. -- maybe worth dropping the latter for consistency.
• That's all I could nitpick really. This is a well-structured, informative and FL-worthy list as one would expect from you work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Very kind, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Z1720

• File:Pinus banksiana tree.jpg: The source link didn't work so I replaced it with another link.
• File:Pinus monticola opencones.jpg: Source link was broken so I added an archived link
• File:PonderosaPinebarkidaho.JPG: Source link is broken but there is a notice that the copyright was released so I don't think its necessary
• File:Thuja occidentalis trunk.jpg: replaced a broken link
• File:Tsuga canadensis morton.jpg: added archived link
• I fixed licence link concerns above, no other concerns with licencing.
• All images have alt text.
• File:Red Creek Fir.jpg: since this image is at the top of the page and not part of a row, I recommend that this alt text be a little more descriptive than "landscape".
• No px problems, since most images are used in a template

Since there is only one minor concern with alt text, I can support this nomination based on the image review. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done, thx. I used "trunk of a large tree in the forest" for the alt text. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks Chris ... been trying to review your stuff but I never get there in time! I'll try to review the next one early. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    • No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting are both up to scratch, as expected. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [19].

---

Rachelle Ann Go discography

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

After working on Rachelle Ann Go's list of songs and awards, here's another related list I am nominating. I've worked on her discography which spans her career as a pop artist in Philippines and her transition into musical theater. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable in 2011, which" => "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable, in 2011, which"
• "In 2014, she debuted on the West End revival" => "In 2014, she debuted in the West End revival"
• Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• One source is in Tagalog ... that's not a problem, of course, I'm just giving notice that I don't know Tagalog.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support Dank. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennat

• The image looks good, and its from commons so no problem.
• I will know look over the sources, this might take a while.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Numbers from this revision [20]

  1. Good
  2. Good
  3. Good
  4. Good
  5. Good
  6. Good
  7. Good Consider archiving it though
  8. Good
  9. Good
  10. Good
  11. Good
  12. Good
  13. Good
  14. Good All have been checked
  15. Good
  16. Good
  17. Good
  18. Good
  19. Good
  20. Good
  21. Good
  22. Good
  23. Good
  24. Good
  25. Good
  26. Good
  27. Good
  28. Good

  • Support Good job on thisQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the source review and spot checks OlifanofmrTennant. Ref 7 has been archived. Much appreciate your time and effort. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

750h

• I don't think, with the previous comments, you will need my support, but I'll add mine anyways @Pseud 14: I hope we'll see this at WP:FTC soon! 750h+ 08:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [21].

---

List of presidents of Centre College

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This article comes as part of a series on Centre College's presidents that I have been working on for over two years now. After getting a handful of the biography articles to FA, I wanted to go ahead and try to get the list to featured as well - much of the format of this article was inspired by List of presidents of Georgetown University, also an FL. I hope that I have provided an adequate amount of detail on the office's history and the men who have occupied it. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• There's something really weird going on with the "name" column. If I sort on that column, the order I get begins Adams > Beatty > Moreland > Morrill > Blackburn. It seems completely random.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Really weird indeed. I think the "Rev." prefixes were messing with {{sortname}} so I've taken the latter out and defined the sorting stuff myself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Both Youngs, who were father and son, in addition to McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts, are the five Centre presidents to have died in office" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would change it to "Five Centre presidents have died in office: both Youngs, who were father and son, McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts."
• Note a isn't a sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! Both done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

750h

Hi PCN02WPS, this is my first FLC contribution, so excuse me if I make a few mistakes.

• In the third paragraph, "John C. Young" should be changed to "Young" since he's already been introduced.
• With the three pictures next to the take, do we need to link their articles? They've already been linked at least twice within the article.
• That's all!  750h+ | Talk  12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @750h+: thanks for taking a look. I removed the links in the captions but I'd prefer to leave Young's full name since there was another Young (his son, in fact) and in the previous sentence they are mentioned together as "both Youngs", leaving "Young" open to ambiguity at that point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    Support.  750h+ | Talk  12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Z1720

• I added a page number for File:Hillcrest House, Centre College, 1927.png
• Recommend replacing the Craik House image with Craik House, Centre College, West Main Street, Danville, KY - 51985279388.jpg, as it shows more of the building. Maybe one day we can get an unobstructed view.
• File:Centre_College_Kentucky.jpg doesn't have alt text
• px not used.

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Added alt text and replaced the Craik House image as recommended - I have considered taking a picture myself but those pesky trees make quite the obstacle. As for the last comment, I was under the impression that fixed px sizes weren't good to use on images, but perhaps I am wrong. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Sorry for the confusion about the px: you are correct, px is not recommended (and we should use upright instead). I was just noting for the coordinators that I checked for this and found no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Source Review

I see that this needs a source review. I'll happily provide one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 1 Good
• Ref 7 Good
• Ref 12 Good
• Ref 14 Good
• Ref 20 Good
• Ref 25 Good
• Ref 30 Good
• Ref 46 Good
• Ref 52 Good
• Ref 55 Good
• Ref 62 Good

• Pelican Publishing Company should be linked
• Most of the books seem reliable. However I cant find anything on Genealogical Publishing Company.
• Is Presbyterian Encyclopædia Publishing Company the same as Presbyterian Publishing Corporation if so should be linked.
• Is New York: Charles Scribner & Co the same as Charles Scribner's Sons, if so should be linked.

• • Ping me when ready. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for taking a look! I'm happy to replace the Genealogical Publishing Company source if you'd recommend it, here's their website and here's one that tells a little about them. I'm only using that source for the fact that William C. Young was PCUSA moderator, so that can be switched if need be. I don't think the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation is the same entity, at least from what I can tell, but the other two links have been added as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

      I'm unconvinced on Genalogical, I recommend replacing it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

      @OlifanofmrTennant switched it out, does that look better? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

      Support Yes Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [22].

---

List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, getting close to finally wrapping up the first-round pick series. This list is nomination #9 in the series for me and, pending its promotion, would be #29 in the series to be promoted. This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

I've been curious about reviewing one of these sports-related lists for a while now. Saving a spot for later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to review my nomination @TechnoSquirrel69! For future reference though, it's unnecessary to reserve/save a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, I just like to put my name down to commit myself to it and to let you know you have a review coming. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Just following up on this since it's been a couple of weeks. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Josh, this review just got swept up with a lot of other things that have been keeping me busy for the last week. I'm hoping to get some comments in for you before next weekend with a source review to boot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Truthfully I'm hoping to have a source review before then. This is why it's generally best not to "reserve" review spots. It puts us in a weird limbo if someone else provides one and I have enough reviews for promotion but am waiting on a review from someone who's reserved a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Citation numbers from this revision.

• In citations 6 and 10: change hyphens (-) to en dashes (–).
• In citation 23: AP News → Associated Press
• What makes the Daily Norseman a reliable source? It seems to be just like any other blog hosted on SB Nation, and its staff page indicates no editorial oversight.
• A few random spot-checks did not turn up any issues.

Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for the source review. I've fixed citations 6 and 10. Is there any reason why I should be changing AP News to Associated Press? My understanding is they are under the same umbrella, but it's more accurate to list the source as AP News instead of Associated Press to slightly differentiate the source (department). The Daily Norseman is nothing special in terms of reliability, but it's about the only one that has outright stated that Hackbart signed with the Green Bay Packers instead of the Raiders. For the factoid that it's verifying, I do believe it's reliable enough. The alternative would be to piece together a number of sources which show that he clearly played for the Packers instead of the Raiders, but that's not quite the same or as clear cut as showing that in text. There isn't inherently anything that makes the source unreliable, and if it were a more contested fact I'd probably go through the effort of utilizing 5+ sources to get that specific bit verified, but, given the weight of the statement, I do believe the source is adequate. This link shows he was drafted by the Packers and Raiders, it shows stats in the 1960 season for Hackbart playing for the Packers, but it doesn't outright state that he signed for the Packers instead whereas the other source does. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If there's a meaningful difference between using "AP News" rather than "Associated Press", as you've done in other citations, then it can be kept as is. As for the Daily Norseman, I'm inclined to assess it as an unreliable self-published source unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, such as the author being a widely-recognized expert, or the publication being cited in other reliable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I'd be more inclined to assess the source as WP:NEWSBLOG. This is an official subfork of SB Nation, albeit with lesser oversight, and doesn't quite the fit the definition of a group blog. I spent hours looking for a statement about Hackbart signing with the Packers over Oakland, but it's been impossible to find. The alternative is WP:SYNTH of sources in a way that leaves a gap and forces us to make assumptions. The only other possible source I've found, which I've just now realized MIGHT be appropriate, is this. It's confusing, because it essentially lists two authors, but one of them is listed as a team historian (Jerry Knaak), while the other (David Griffin) is listed on the Raiders' front office roster. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, and prior discussions here and here indicate other editors are also less than impressed by SB Nation blogs, especially if they lack editorial oversight. The link you shared is also not an ideal source, but I'd be willing to accept it to verify the statements in the article currently citing the Daily Norseman. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: As always, context is key, and not all sub sites of SB Nation are considered unreliable. In fact, the Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide points to there being no consensus on the sub sites of SB Nation. There's nothing to suggest the information, and the weight of the information being verified (non-controversial) in the source is incorrect. There's simply no other sources in the hours I've searched that states the same thing, the article is not improved by removing that fact, and we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said everything I have to say about the reliability of the Daily Norseman. I'd also like to remind you of the verifiability, not truth principle; unreliable sources are no more acceptable in cases where "we don't currently have a reason to believe the source might be wrong" than any other. I'm not advocating for removing that content from the article, just the replacement of the source. Why not incorporate Jerry Knaak's article you shared above instead? As far as I can see, it verifies the same information and is something I'm inclined to assess as a primary source in the same vein as articles coming from the Raiders' website considering the contributors' histories. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: This has not been defined as an unreliable source, that's the issue. You believe it to be unreliable, I do not, that's the crux of the disagreement. This is being evaluated as if it's a controversial fact, but the weight of the information being verified is relevant when evaluating sources, and the weight of this statement is miniscule. I was hesitant to add the second source because Exposure.co is for making visual stories, which doesn't scream reliable source, and, frankly, we have no verification that that is the person they're claiming to be. It's not linked from the Raiders website anywhere I can, so that doesn't help. Never the less, I've gone ahead and added the source, despite disagreeing with the weight of the sources. I did not remove the Daily Norseman reference and see no reason to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure; given that there's no consensus in the community or between the two of us on this source, that's probably the best compromise we can come to. Source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Passing comment

• In the key, the entire phrase "inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" should be included in the link in the spirit of WP:EASTEREGG. The way it's currently linked, I'd expect it to lead to Pro Football Hall of Fame, not List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I missed this comment, but I've addressed this in all 12 of the lists in this series that I've worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it on 12 more articles in the series as well. Every list in the series now properly links to the Pro Football Hall of Fame instead of the list of inductees. Just gonna ping you so you know this is done @TechnoSquirrel69. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "He he nine seasons" (in photo caption)
• "The team departed Oakland to play in Los Angeles from the 1982 season through the 1994 season, becoming the "Los Angeles Raiders" during this time" - I would lose the last three words, as they could be taken to mean that they changed their name at some (unspecified) point in the middle of that 12-year period, rather than at the start
• "The team has [singular] played their [plural]"
• That's it, I think! Great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made changes based on your always valuable feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• Founded on January 30, 1960, as the Oakland Raiders -- Possibly worth linking their old names Oakland Raiders and Los Angeles Raiders, as seeing they have wiki articles.
• I also don't think you need to put their old names in quotations.
• Oakland -- I would also link this, since you have linked Los Angeles.
• Nothing else to quibble. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed.
• Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @Pseud 14! I've made changes based on your feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Wikilink "wide receiver" and "return specialist" in the lead image's caption.
• The note for Fabian Washington is missing a period after "Vikings".

That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catches, I've made the appropriate changes. Thanks @MPGuy2824! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• This led to a massive bidding war over top prospects between the two leagues, "massive" comes across as a bit MOS:PUFFERY. I don't see that wording used in the sources. I think "bidding war" alone conveys what is needed.
• ; he was the team's territorial selection. - recommend wrapping in parenthesis instead. This is somewhat of an afterthought/addition and makes a bit more sense instead of a semi-colon.

Neither of those issues withhold my support. Nice work Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Gonzo fan2007! I've removed the word "massive" from the 5 relevant AFL first-round pick articles I've worked on, this one included of course. As for the parenthesis, I'll give it some though, but I won't implement it at this time. I'd like to keep it consistent across the series and I want to mull it over whether it's better that way or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Nominator(s): Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my first FLC! I am nominating this for featured list because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest-grossing film franchise and one of the most popular media franchises today. It has had a significant impact on the film industry and has a large following with various articles going into much detail on the different aspects that make up this franchise. This list outline provides a comprehensive breakdown of these working parts to help guide readers through navigating this multimedia franchise. I do want to stress that while some of these tables are transcluded from sub-articles, they have been designed with visual aid and navigation on this list in mind. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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're good on column and row scopes, but unfortunately the pseudo-headers within the tables (like "Phase One") don't meet accessibility standards. The more complete explanation is at MOS:COLHEAD, but in short while they look visually like a new header, they're not actually like that in the table code so screen reader software treats them like their a cell from the first column (e.g. the first film is named "Phase One"). You need to either make the phases their own tables or else make "Phase" a column in the combined table. COLHEAD has examples of both. Same goes for the other 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 02:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good to know! I think I would prefer using captions over adding another column for "Phases", just to avoid bundling more text together in the tables than is necessary. I'll be testing this out here shortly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Trailblazer101: Where some of these tables originate, they don't need the captions visible because they are virtually duplicating the heading right by the table. This will then affect how they appear here and I think we need to go the route of subsections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I understand. My thinking now is that maybe we should vacate the saga sections and split them up by phases entirely, as to avoid overdoing subheaders. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I now see the changes you've made. That handles it better. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Great. Also, I can totally tackle the TV tables later today or tomorrow. Those I know will be a bit of coding work to ensure everything appears where it needs to at other articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's kind of why I put them off until last. An assist would be greatly appreciated for those! Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok I think I've gotten it all settled. We'll just need to see if the captions are worded the way we want (in particular the Marvel TV ones), and then what ever other hatnotes we'd need on the outline article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks a bunch! Okay, I just tweaked some display for the future films with that WM update tag as it was spanning the width on different columns too much, especially for some empty cells. They all look good to me, though I'm not currently sure what other hatnotes we may need. Would it now be appropriate to introduce the {{Transcluded section}} hatnotes to the outline sections where applicable/appropriate or would that be overkill? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  My thought on hatnoes was if under say "Phase One" we should have it there, even though I have now linked it in the prose below "The Infinity Saga". {{Transcluding article}} may be better as a "catch all" if desired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think either one could work for this, though transcluded section may be more preferred as it would provide links in each section which would be beneficial for the Marvel Studios series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have gone with {{Transcluded section}} for each of the sections where applicable and swapped the {{Main}} instances with those given it accomplishes two tasks at once. I also included specific section headers in the links for readers to easily click to, though I will note when you click to edit, it goes straight to the page and not the sections, though I don't think that's an issue. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN: The accessibility suggestions have all been addressed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [23].

---

United States congressional delegations from Connecticut

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my first FLC! I thought Connecticut needed more featured lists :). This is a list of all the senators and representatives to Congress from Connecticut since it became a US state in 1788. The list is modeled after another similar featured list, United States congressional delegations from Hawaii. Please let me know any feedback you might have; thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824's comments

• "Current U.S. representatives from Connecticut" should be a table caption and not a header. Same with the senator table.
• Wikilink the first usage of "dean".
• 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same goes for row header cells, where the scope=row or rowgroup needs to be used.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
• In the "United States Senate" table, what does the gray/white 3rd column (after the one showing the party color) signify?
• Also, what does the "(PA)" next to Oliver Ellsworth's name stand for? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  @MPGuy2824 Hi! Thanks for your feedback!

  • Headers converted to table captions - done!
  • There isn't a good wikilink I can include for "dean", but I've added a clarification as to what it means, and included a wikilink to the similar page Dean of the United States House of Representatives - done, but might want clarification.
  • It took me a bit but I think I added scopes to all the tables (although I may have missed something or messed up somewhere - is there a way to check?) - done for now.
  • The gray/white 3rd column signifies the term that senator was serving (every six years). Made me realize I need to add footnotes for a lot more senators, so that's on my to-do list. How should I make the meaning of the gray/white bars clear?
  • "(PA)" should mean Pro-Administration, legend is now fixed to represent that - done!

  Thanks again for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • The tables in the "United States House of Representatives" section still need table captions.
  • The colors in the "United States Senate" are still weird. e.g. looking at "Oliver Ellsworth (PA)". The color next to him is a green that isn't present in the legend above, and doesn't match the color for Pro-Administration, which is white.
  • What does (F) in "James Hillhouse (F)" stand for? Maybe you meant FS for Free Soil, but the color doesn't match.
  • Also, it should be !scope="col", not ! !scope="col" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 Hi, I believe I've fixed all the issues addressed in your last comment. Thanks for bearing with me - let me know if there's other issues that need fixing. In particular, here were the fixes applied:

    • Table captions added to "United States House of Representatives" section
    • All colors of senators should now be represented accurately in the legend.
    • (F) should stand for "Federalist Party" - missed including that in the legend.
    • Fixed that scope issue.

    Thanks again, and have a great rest of your day. Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

    Support promotion. P.S. With the table class setting that you have, anything in a header cell doesn't need to be explicitly bolded. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink

Support! I also have an FLC about a state beginning with the letter C! So I figured I'd come here and review this one, especially since I enjoy politics. I compared the list to the three existing featured lists for state congressional delegations - Hawaii, Indiana, and Utah.

• Is there an image for the top-right of the page? All of the other featured lists have that.
• Somewhere you need to link U.S. state. Some people might never have heard of Connecticut, or believe it's even a real place. Context is important, and in general, I feel that the lead is far too short, compared to Indiana and Utah especially. The Utah list mentions, for example,

• "Before the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the Utah State Legislature. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, one from each of Utah's four congressional districts."

• Was that similar for Connecticut? Also, how many have there been? Utah's list also includes a total number, which is a useful bit of information you'd expect in a featured list, such as people who were both a representative and senator, the longest-serving member, a gender breakdown, the current dean of the state. That information should be in the lead. That's important for how Wikipedia's information is shown. On mobile, for example, you would see the lead, and then have to open up tabs to read more information.
• I don't know if it's overkill, but considering the number of times that PVI is brought up, could you explain somewhere what that means, not just linking it in the first infobox for current U.S. senators?
• "Connecticut has not had a Republican representative in Congress for more than a decade" - which begs me to ask, who was the last Republican? I think it's worth mentioning in the spirit of neutrality both in respect for party affiliation and historical context.
• Just some general spotchecking, but could you tell me what is the reference for the historical list of senators? For example, that James Hillhouse was after Ellsworth.
• There's nothing about how the representatives are voted for. Again, referring to Utah's list, there should be something like - "Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years by popular vote within a congressional district... Connecticut has had five districts since 2003."

So that's it. I don't think any of the above should be that difficult, it's mostly me being nitpicky with what I expect out of a featured list. Please let met know if you have any comments, Staraction (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink Hi! Thanks for your feedback!

• The image was included originally later on in the article, but I've moved it to the top right as suggested - done!
• Wikilinked U.S. State in lead and expanded it - done!
• Count included in lead - done!
• I've included a new description about what CPVI is - done!
• I originally included that information in a caption with Chris Shays' image, but I've included that in the body of the article too now - done!
• [24] is the source, which is now included in a caption - done!
• Included under United States House of Representatives - done!

Thanks again for your feedback, and best of luck on your own FLC! I did not even realize that Indiana and Utah had FLs for their congressional delegations - that will be super helpful to me in the future! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, that works great! Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment," - say when this was
• "Each state elects varying members of the House" => "Each state elects varying numbers of members of the House"
• "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, having served in the House since 1991" => "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, who has served in the House since 1991" (in both body and lead)
• "when Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district" => "since Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district"
• "Connecticut's senators are elected in classes II and III" - what does this mean? Also, does this not conflict with the previous section, which said that Chris Murphy is a Class I senator?
• Something seems amiss with the scope for the 50th Congress row -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Hi, it should all be fixed. Thanks for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review from Z1720

• File:Richard Blumenthal Official Portrait (cropped).jpg: source link is a broken link, but I'm willing to AGF that this is still an image taken of a US employee for their official duties.
• File:Oliver Ellsworth.jpg: This image is lacking source info, author info, and a PD-US tag. Unless this information is added, this should not be used in the article.
• File:WalterBooth.jpg: same as above.
• File:Clare boothe.jpg: needs a US-PD tag
• File:Chris Shays official photo.jpg: links to the source both don't work (one links to a pink and black site with text in a different language) and I could not find the original image. I suggest using a different image or finding an archived version of the image.
• Per MOS:UPRIGHT, images should use upright, not px, to be resized.
• Per MOS:ALT, I recommend adding alt text to images.

Additional comments not related to images:

• Per MOS:ALLCAPS the titles of sources should not have words in all caps.
• Ensure all sources have the name of the author (Ref 23 and 31 are missing the author, but there might be others)

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This might take me a few days, but I'm on it; thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 Hi, apologies for the delay but I believe I've resolved all the issues you've pointed out. Could you please see if I sourced the images correctly, since I wasn't too sure on those? Thanks for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; somehow I missed that the Senate table was missing rowscopes when I did my accessibility review so I just went ahead and fixed it myself; promoting. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2023)

Nominator(s): 98Tigerius (talk) and EN-Jungwon (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time with En-Jungwon nominating a list article to a FL status. It is the ninth article in the series and the list follows the same pattern as previous lists. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "global pre-vote derived from Mubeat app" => "global pre-vote derived from the Mubeat app"
• "...and Umji[14] appeared" => "and Umji[14] have appeared"
• " Six boy groups ranked two singles at number one on the chart in 2023. TXT with" => " Six boy groups ranked two singles at number one on the chart in 2023: TXT with"
• ""Rover", "Killin' Me Good", and "Perfume", helped" => ""Rover", "Killin' Me Good", and "Perfume" helped"
• "gain their first ever music show award" => "gain their first ever music show awards"
• "BTS members Jimin, V, and Jungkook gained their first number ones" => "BTS members Jimin, V, and Jungkook gained their first solo number ones"
• "Exo's Kai and Twice' Jihyo received" => "Exo's Kai and Twice's Jihyo received"
• "(From left to right) Blackpink's Jisoo, BTS' Jimin, V and Jungkook " - on my screen at least they are in two rows of two so "from left to right" doesn't make sense.
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done the first to seventh parts while the last part I modified it from "(From left to right) Blackpink's Jisoo, BTS' Jimin, V and Jungkook " to "Blackpink's Jisoo (top left), BTS' Jimin (top right), V (bottom left) and Jungkook (bottom right) ". 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824's comments

• "Since January 6 episode". We are still talking about the chart and show in general at this point in the lead. You'll have to mention the year as well, for clarity.
• In the table, since there were some awards without an episode, I'd say that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: Done adding the year. The table has been formatted like that since List of Music Bank Chart winners (2015) until List of Music Bank Chart winners (2022), which are all FL of this series, and changing it will have inconsistency. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: It's been three weeks and I haven't got a follow-up from you, I hope we can get this week. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Since January 6, 2024, episode," to "Since the episode on January 6, 2024," since it scans a bit better.
• Since the points column in the table has a varying number of digits (4 or 5), I think you should right-align them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Done and thank you for the feedback. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion, but I agree with the last reviewer that the paragraph about the hosts seems unrelated to the topic at hand. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

Placeholder for image review; will start looking at this tonight or tomorrow. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Some comments:

• File:Park Jihyo for Pearly Gates Korea 02.jpg – Verification issue here. This file's information page describes it as a screenshot of a YouTube video, but the video link provided as a source doesn't seem to portray Jihyo as she appears here; the hat in the photo is not present in the video.
• Otherwise, the sources for each image/screenshot check out. In future, when using a YouTube screenshot, I recommend adding the video timestamp for the screenshot in question to the description page for the upload, though I have just done so for this list's screenshots (where possible) over at Commons; see my recent edits there.
• Everything else looks good:
  • Each image has appropriate alt text.
  • Each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Each image is appropriately licensed, though I did need to look quite hard on the source for the Jisoo photo to verify its licensing information.

I look forward to supporting once the Jihyo image issue is resolved. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620 the source link given in the file description was incorrect. I have found the actual video and fixed the link in the file description. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this. I am happy to support this nomination. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• In the table, maybe "(G)I-dle" should be sorted under G instead of "(".
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I did a little copyediting; feel free to revert. Otherwise, nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, 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. You've got an image review already.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. I don't read Korean at all, so I can't cover all of the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dank: Done sorting "(G)I-dle". 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 05:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

K. Annoyomous

• The second paragraph about hosts lacks relevance to chart winners; no apparent connection between hosts and chart winners.
• I suggest indicating multiple winners in the list with (#) or having a separate chart; refer to NBA Most Valuable Player Award as an example.
  • It provides a clear view of songs and artists that won multiple charts in the year, enhancing the comprehensiveness of the list.

Neutral for now due to criteria 2 and 3 not fully satisfied K. Annoyomous (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed. You could do a callout of multiple winners, but it's not a requirement, not all lists of this type do, and you haven't for the last 8 lists, so I'm not bothered. I do think the small bit on the hosts is okay, since these charts have a show that is associated with them unlike most. Promoting. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [26].

---

List of Coldplay live performances

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The column scopes in the tables have been fixed as asked before. Other than that, I think we are ready for the next steps. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Drive-through comments

• Concert tours table - does everything need to be center-aligned? It would be better for the number columns (shows, gross, attendance) to be right aligned.
• "width:17.05em" seems like unnecessary precision.
• COLOR shouldn't be the only means of conveying important information. Add a symbol as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that the centered number columns makes it easier to visualise the information, similar to the List of highest-grossing concert tours. And yes, tables all across the article are precisely aligned, I'm an obsessed perfectionist. With that said, I just made a few adjustments to meet your criteria without compromising mine too much. Sorry for not adding a symbol before, I completely forgot. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would suggest center-aligning the "Performed songs" columns as those seem to be the most bulky with substance and are not as easily readable with how much content is there. As a fellow perfectionist, I understand the desire to center these tables, though I concur that the number columns could either be left or right aligned. I've typically seen left-aligned used for release dates in other tables, and the same could work here to help differentiate each table. There are also multiple citations that would benefit from website links and archives, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like centering the "Performed songs" columns would be weird, maybe having the "Event" column left-aligned in the "Music festivals" section is a better idea to make things more uniform. As for the dates, are you referring to pages such as List of Lady Gaga live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances when you talk about them? I find their left-alignment very ugly and they don't fit with the tour articles, centering them in the Coldplay gig catalogue was a conscious decision. Lastly, I archived all the online references already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, my mistake on the references. I'm not too big on the alignment, and yeah, I was referring to those more popular ones. I'll leave it up to your discretion. It all looks good to me, so I'll gladly Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Procedural comment

• As a procedural note, Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support. Your nomination on the List of cover versions of Coldplay songs has one support at the moment. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @WP:FLC director and delegates: , can you please archive this nom. Per the criteria and Pseud, this is a second nom without substantial support on the first nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [27].

---

List of Liechtenstein general elections

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe this article that I created to be of high quality and I would like to nominate it for FL. It is quite simple, but I believe it explains the topic well inline with contemporary lists. TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• No list should start with "This is a list of". It might be better if the current second paragraph is moved to the top.
• "Elections in Liechtenstein have been held since the ratification of the 1862 constitution in with the Landtag was of Liechtenstein was established for the first time." Needs grammar fixes to be intelligible.
• I don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
• You can consider using the Template:Party name with color template for the political party cell in the table. The other columns don't need the color.
• Is the monarch column very relevant to this table? Same for the date column.
• Only slightly relevant to this FLC, but please create a stub atleast for Karl Freiherr Haus von Hausen.
• Is the phrase "(during term)" in the PM column necessary?
• The notes for the graph should be in its caption.
• "First election to use 25 Landtag seats instead of 15." to "First election to have 25 Landtag seats instead of 15."
• Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. 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.
• The last three are PresN's standard comments. That's all I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I believe I have (at least started to) addressed this issue pointed out. As you have pointed out with the monarch and date it may not be necessary, though I would be a proponent of keeping the date(s) as I believe it's better structures the table given that some elections have taken place in the same year. That being said, I have replaced the monarch column with a reference one instead as recommended by @RunningTiger123, these are the sources from the main election article. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Still need colscopes. --PresN 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Take another look. TheBritinator (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • The elections in the same years are disambiguated by month names in the election column already.
  • I still don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
  • Please see my earlier comment about using Party name with color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

    Design choice by myself. The idea is to show the ruling party at the time of the election. Could be removed, though. TheBritinator (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

    @MPGuy2824 I wanted to use party name with color, but I'm not entirely sure how it works nor if it really fits with the design choice I have made with the table. I would swap it if I could. TheBritinator (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

    • The color of the previous winning party bleeding into the next election's row was quite confusing. It's good that you removed it.
    • If you want to see the template that I suggested in action look at Sangha Assembly constituency#Members of the Legislative Assembly. With the colors that you are stuck with, MOS:CONTRAST is an issue (as pointed out below by RunningTiger123).
    • Additionally, consider centering the references column to see if you like the look better. Not a showstopper though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

      Centred. I have taken another look and I'm still unsure about the template, when I try to use it it appears to bleed the colour and party name as a new column, not sure how I am supposed to produce the result on the article you referenced. Thanks TheBritinator (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

      Alright, I see you have done that yourself, thanks. Is there anything else? TheBritinator (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

      Sorry, I was off-wiki for a few days. Please ping reviewers when you respond, as few FL reviewers watchlist a review page where they aren't the nominator. A few more nitpicks:

      1. Lately I've seen reviewers ask that numbers in table be right-aligned. This is specifically related to the "seat majority" column. It isn't as important for the "winning vote share" column, but you could do it anyway for consistency.
      2. "Political parties did not exist in Liechtenstein until 1918 and before the ratification of the 1921 constitution the head of government was not elected but rather appointed by the prince of Liechtenstein, thus elections were only held to elect members of the Landtag." is quite a complicated sentence. Consider splitting it.
      3. Not a deal breaker, but you could just say "Prime Minister" instead of "Elected prime minister" in the table header.
      4. Regarding your "This is a list of " problem (mentioned in another reviewer's section below). You could remove the sentence completely and mention the fact that "the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein then elect the prime minister of Liechtenstein" elsewhere in the lead. If you aren't able to find more content for the (now shortened) second paragraph, then merge the remaining sentence with the first paragraph. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

      @MPGuy2824 Done. I also merged some cells. TheBritinator (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

      Support promotion. There is now no need for the party key, since the colors are right next to the party abbreviations. I suggest that you remove it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

      Done. TheBritinator (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Agree with all of the above comments
• "elections for the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein and Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" – but the PM isn't directly elected, right? The elections only select the Landtag representatives; those representatives then elect the PM.
  • Same idea for "Elected prime minister (during term)" in column header – just say "Prime minister"
• No need for empty lines in the "Political parties" section (just leads to unnecessary gaps)
• Don't add bold text in markup for table headers (MediaWiki adds bold text automatically)
• Images need alt text
• I'm having a hard time checking because the colors include an alpha value, but I don't think the background cell colors meet MOS:COLOR. There must be a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between the text and background colors.
• "30 September 1914 – 2 October 1914" – no need to state year twice
• Perhaps the most critical part – what's your source for any of the election results???
  • File:Liechtenstein elections graph.png should also explain what its sources are

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Remaining items I see:

• Missing comma after "(green)" in image caption
• Image description page still lacks sources
• A key for the party abbreviations would help – I wouldn't mind if you put it in the image caption, e.g., Progressive Citizens' Party (FBP, blue)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Done. Looks good to you? TheBritinator (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

TheBritinator There are some unaddressed comments here for over a month; do you intend to respond to them? MPGuy2824 Do you intend to return to your review to close it out? --PresN 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

May you please be more specific on what comments need to be adressed? TheBritinator (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

• "was established for the first time" → reads as redundant to me
• "and before the ratification 1921 constitution" → missing word
• "the reigning prince of Liechtenstein" → is "reigning" necessary
• Recommend breaking up the second sentence of the first paragraph, it's a little long
• "This is a list of Liechtenstein" → I'm not a huge fan of this composition ("This is a list of...") - I think it would be better to take what's in parentheses and make that the focal point of the sentence/paragraph
• "elect the Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" → remove caps from PM
• "before in 1988 a successful referendum was held" → ungrammatical
• "increased the seats to 25" → perhaps "increased the number of seats to 25"?
• Is "(1862–present)" necessary in the subsection title
• Recommend using {{sfn}} so that the Nohlen/Stover reference is not duplicated five times

That's what I've got. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. TheBritinator (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple more points on second read-through:

• Landtag is linked in both the first and second paragraphs
• "...of Liechtenstein" gets a little repetitive in the second paragraph, could shorten to "...the prime minister)", for example
• Still not a huge fan of "This is a list of..." - this format (while not the first sentence) is explicitly discouraged by MOS:THISISALIST
• "before in 1988 a referendum was held" → still not grammatical (maybe "before a 1988 referendum that increased...")
• Vogt 1987 shows up in the references and bibliography - guessing that is because his full name is entered as just his last name. Recommend using |author-link= to add a link to his page
• Notes 1 and 3 aren't complete sentences and therefore do not require full stops

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. What would you recommend instead of "This is a list of..."? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for RunningTiger123 and PCN02WPS. --PresN 13:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, been off-wiki for a bit. Here's what I've got on third read-through:

• "Political parties did not exist in Liechtenstein until 1918" → if the first one was established in 1918, might be helpful to mention it here
• "Before the ratification of the 1921 constitution the head of government" → comma after "constitution" would be good
• "Under the 1921 constitution general elections are held" → ditto for "constitution" here
• "who then elect the prime minister of Liechtenstein" → I still think "of Liechtenstein" is unneeded here; it's abundantly clear what country we're talking about so I don't think "the prime minister" is ambiguous
• "The initial number of seats of the Landtag was set at 15" → I think this would sound better if it were simplified (e.g. "The Landtag had 15 seats until..."), since the referendum didn't change the initial amount of seats, just the current number at that time.
• Issue with Vogt citation still remains

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS Done. Looks good to you? TheBritinator (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Still one comma missing (the third bullet point in the last list) but I won't hold it up only for that. Happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

List of cover versions of Coldplay songs

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The most notable change since then was the removal of tribute projects, as they are now part of Cultural impact of Coldplay. With that said, allow me to recap some important points from the original discussion:

• Selection criteria: My research for Coldplay covers added only acts who have a Wikipedia page to the list, which in theory means they are notable.
• Secondary sources: A fellow Wikipedian pointed out they would prefer to see more secondary sources where possible. I managed to go from 143 primary sources to 93.
• Glee covers: Footnotes were added to specify which people from the cast performed the songs.
• Country column: If I remember correctly, this was a controversial topic of discussion. I used the nationality that is shown on each act's article.

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

All the notes other than the first one are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Solved! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000) and following albums" - I think just "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000)" works. They did really rise to fame with that album.
• Willie Nelson image caption needs a full stop.
• Richard Cheese should be under C not R
• Jai McDowall is Scottish, not American
• Damian McGinty is Irish, not American
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  I included "and following albums" because while Parachutes (2000) was an immediate success in the United Kingdom, they only started to grow further around the world with A Rush of Blood to the Head (2002), X&Y (2005), and more. As for Richard Cheese, they are a group instead of an individual, are you sure I should sort them under C? The sorting rules are very confusing to me. Other than that, all solved! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Richard Cheese is one guy (real name Mark Davis) not a group -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the article says "Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine (or simply Richard Cheese) is a cover band and comedy act". GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [28].

---

Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is my second Marvel Cinematic Universe list I've nominated. While not the first to use credit scenes, the MCU popularized them for betrer or worse. -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14

A great article with a detailed coverage about a popular culture topic (I didn't know this existed!). Looking at the lead, at 4 sentences, it appears to be short. Having said that, I would suggest that perhaps you utilize the History section as the article's lead since it pretty much sums up what the article is about and what is outlined in the tables for each phases. It should work well IMO, including the primary image. The other prose sections after the table should be fine.

Here are the rest of my comments on the prose:

• S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson -- worth linking to S.H.I.E.L.D. on the first instance
• Other times these mid- and post-credits scenes -- comma after other times
• receives her next assignment: take down Clint Barton -- I think the colon can be dropped and just be written as receives her next assignment to take down Clint Barton, ...
• In the Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film -- In Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film
• A review noted that the scene -- a reviewer or perhaps attribute the name

Image review : Passed

• Non-free image has appropriate FUR for it's use on the article.
• Image is relevant
• Caption is OK, but perhaps, per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, the second sentence with the quote can be incorporated in the lead instead. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for another great and helpful review Pseud 14! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good and happy to support. I made some small edits. Btw, if you have some time and interest, I got something on the other side. Wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DBC

I think for accessibility purposes alt text for the image would be great. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant The image has alt text already. -- ZooBlazer 04:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh odd it wasn't popping up for some reason. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review – pass

• I didn't see anything in references 12-13 that actually support the claim of it being the longest post-credits scene, have I just missed it? "Over four minutes" likely doesn't need sourced as it's referenced to the work itself, similar to a plot summary, but stating it's the longest is a fairly direct claim.

  Reworded it since I can't find any reliable sources stating it. -- ZooBlazer

• Template:Cite AV media accepts author data for the writer of the films in references 16-18. The information seems just as relevant, if not more, given they likely wrote the mid/post-credit scenes.

  It doesn't work when the people parameter is used. In general it seems like directors get listed first for films/short films and writers get more credit for TV series, which is why the director is the one listed in these template. -- ZooBlazer

• Reference 47 has an author that needs added

  Added -- ZooBlazer

• Reference 49 lists GamesRadar+ while others from this website just list GamesRadar. Should be unified one way or the other considering they all lead to the same site and it all source were released well after the 2014 rename.

  Added + to all of them. -- ZooBlazer

• Spot-checked five other references and everything seems to be good.

Not much to say here, great work on the article! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review TheDoctorWho. I've addressed all of your comments above. -- ZooBlazer 17:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, source review passes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Sam J image caption isn't a complete sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop
• "The post-credit scene for the MCU television series, Hawkeye (2021)'s finale" - don't think there's a need for the comma after "series"
• "The following table covers [...] and are" - this doesn't agree gramatically, as the subject of the sentence is singular but the verb abruptly changes to plural
• "to the Taneleer Tivan the Collector" - first "the" isn't needed
• "who Nakia has been raising in secret far" => "whom Nakia has been raising in secret far"
• "Toussaint reveals his Wakandan name is T'Challa" => "Toussaint reveals that his Wakandan name is T'Challa"
• ""What are you expecting Sam Jackson to show up in a eye patch?"" => ""What? Are you expecting Sam Jackson to show up in a eye patch?""
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the comments! I think I have addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 16:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [29].

---

Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm back again with another hurricane season timeline! This time it's the 1994 Pacific hurricane season, which generated a trio of Category 5 hurricanes; that's a record for the most in one season, which still stands today (albeit having since been tied twice). One of them, John, became the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever recorded after it embarked on an 8,000-mile (!) voyage across the Pacific Ocean. I'm a little worried about the lede being too large, but I couldn't think of how to scale it back without excising valuable and relevant information. This was a more difficult endeavor than the 1993 EPAC timeline (FLC for that one is still in progress) because of a few data discrepancies that I have tried to address to the best of my ability. Overall, I believe that this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline FL (promoted last week) and the aforementioned 1993 timeline, and I look forward to the community's feedback. I will do my best to address concerns in a timely manner. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've had a go at barbering the lede; this is what it looked like before. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

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

Lede

• The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclogenesis over the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator and east of the International Date Line. - this is quite complex. Is the season "an event", or rather the article chronicles the events that took place during the cycle? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point. This wording was chosen in line with what I have observed to be convention; out of the last six (chronologically speaking) featured hurricane season timelines within the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility—2016 Atlantic, 2018 Atlantic, 2018 Pacific, 2019 Atlantic, 2020 Atlantic, and 2020 Pacific—only the 2020 Atlantic timeline does not start with the "an event" wording. However, it has always seemed kind of odd to me, considering that each hurricane season can contain a large number of events within it. I have revised it to "The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was comprised of the events that occurred in the annual cycle..." although part of me worries this might be more complex; what do you think? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Noting that "was comprised of" was changed by another editor to "consisted of", which I do not disagree with. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• These dates conventionally delineate the period each year when tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin according to the National Hurricane Center - I think this should probably come before the actual dates. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Convention has historically been to put that tidbit after the dates, but I think I've managed to work something out. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• The 1994 season was well above-average - this isn't really a part of a sentence. Presumably should prefix with "activity in" or something. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked this sentence a bit. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• The lede have a lot of citations in it. Do they need to be there? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I think so, since those citations are being used to verify information that is present in the lede but not the body. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

List

• My big worry here is that this isn't super accessible to non-hurricane afficianados. Some examples "Tropical Storm Aletta weakens into a tropical depression", "The aforementioned tropical depression strengthens into Tropical Storm Bud about 540 mi (870 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California", "Tropical Depression Four-E develops from a tropical disturbance about 1,035 mi", etc. even some glossary links would help.
• The image captions aren't very helpful. "Tropical Depression Three-C late on October 22, about 2.5 days before it would become Tropical Storm Nona" is particularly bad, I have no idea what that means. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • In the Pacific basin, the lowest classification of tropical cyclone is a tropical depression, which has sustained winds of fewer than 34 knots (39 mph; 63 km/h). Systems with winds at least that strong and up to 63 knots (73 mph; 117 km/h) are classified as tropical storms; the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center, the two Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres of the area covered by this timeline, assign names to tropical cyclones within their areas of responsibility when they reach tropical storm status. I worded the Three-C/Nona caption that way in an attempt to emphasize that the system had not yet become a tropical storm and received its name; I've rephrased it to hopefully make that clearer to readers, and will be double-checking other captions as well. I have also wikilinked the different classifications in the lede, and replaced "tropical disturbance" with "area of unsettled weather", which is terminology probably more familiar to people casually watching weather forecasts. (This post doubles as a reply to the first bullet in this section.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• On that, what are these images exactly? Are these radar images, direct images or something else? The image descriptions don't help Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • These are direct images taken by satellite, which is pretty much the only way to obtain a full overhead view of a weather system as large as a tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclone articles tend not to specify in the visible captions that these are satellite images, probably for concision's sake; see Tropical Storm Hernan (2020), the most recently promoted tropical cyclone FA, for an example. Instead, the alt text conveys that these are satellite images, which is what I have done with the satellite images in this timeline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    I don't think the captions starting "a satellite image of..." is particularly wordy, especially as it might be difficult to tell otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    @Lee: I've taken a shot at it – please check the updated captions and let me know what you think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    Hi Lee, just wanted to drop a quick reminder about this. Let me know if you have any other feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry Lee, I just saw these more recent bullets; I'll be able to address them after I get home later this afternoon/evening. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 10:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Lee: Apologies again for the delay – replies inline! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Lee for reviewing this. I've addressed one of your points and replied to it inline; I should be able to respond to the other points after I get home later today. (Sorry, I've had a busier past couple days than I anticipated.) Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I have more, I just do it icrementally. Feel free to fix as I go along. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Wikilink basin like in the 1993 list.
• "John traversed the Pacific Ocean". to "Hurricane John".
• Jul 11: "Ka Lae" to "Ka Lae, Hawaii"
• That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review, MPGuy2824. I believe I've addressed your comments; with regards to the third bullet, I have also done the same with all subsequent uses of "Ka Lae". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Z1720

• No concerns with licencing.
• Images have alt text.
• Captions are fine.
• No other concerns.

Support based on image review. Z1720 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reference reliability and formatting both look okay throughout the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 02:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [30].

---

96th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. It followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 ceremonies were written. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment – While it's not required for similar articles to use the same format, this article currently does not use the same format as previous years (even though the nomination suggests it does). Sections are in a different order, and the winners and nominees section in particular needs to be rewritten to actually focus on key points instead of the various trivia thrown in there haphazardly. A more thorough proofreading might be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @RunningTiger123 After making some edits, I believe that article is now following the format more closely to the prior ceremonies than when your comment was made. On Trivial section, I am open to editing the stuff you think is more trivial for the general reader. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll come back for a full review later, but I would suggest rewriting the trivia section to focus on items that are firsts (or maybe seconds/thirds if they aren't super contrived) or records. For instance, Scorsese being the oldest nominee for Best Director is an actual record, but six couples received nominations that they shared together in their respective categories is just a random fact. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I promised a full review, so here's one now.

• No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime

Y Done.

• Network should probably just be ABC (ABC.com and the ABC app are just different ways to watch the main network, as far as I know)

Y Done.

• "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording

Y Done.

• "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead

Y Done.

• As noted before, the trivia in the "Winners and nominees" section should be cleaned up
• Governors Awards should go after the main awards – this matches previous years (which, while not strictly required, is more convenient for readers)

Y Done.

• • In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later

Y Done.

• Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)

Y Done.

• I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.
• "Pre-ceremony information" can just be "Ceremony information", again for consistency

Y Done.

• • Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section

Y Done.

• "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories

Y Done.

• "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)

Y Done.

• "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics

Y Done.

• The whole paragraph about Messi the Dog feels a bit excessive. If it's relevant, it can probably be discussed in the "Reception" section. Speaking of which...
• I really like the way the "Reception" section is written; I actually get a sense of what parts people liked and didn't like and what made this year's ceremony unique. Some small quibbles:
  • "The highlights of the ceremony are considered by many to be" → "Highlights in reviews included" (more neutral)

Y Done.

• • "respective wins of Japanese films Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron" – not convinced that "some people liked the winners" is relevant to ceremony reception, that's almost always true

Y Done.

• • "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)

Y Done.

• • "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"

Y Done.

• • "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)

Y Done.

• • "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)

Y Done.

If you need help with any of this, I suggest reaching out to Birdienest81 – he's worked on a fair few of these lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 I have edited the article according to almost all of the suggestions by you. I will address the other points soon. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@PrinceofPunjab:, @RunningTiger123:: It seems that Princeof Pujab decided to nominate the list for featured list. Unfortunately, the list as it is right would definitely not pass FLC criteria. Among the many issues, the facts sections reads like a trivia list, there are questionable sources, and some sections could be combined together. Usually, I wait until the Emmy Awards are given out before I nominate the ceremony for FLC. If you don't mind, I'm probably, going to do a full rewrite of the ceremony on a sandbox and make it more in line with other Oscar ceremony lists that have featured list status. Right now, this certainly would not pass.

Please note, I am down one computer and don't have access to the one that is working at the moment. So it may take some time to do a full rewrite. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: While I agree the list needs work as it currently stands, the implication that you specifically need to do a rewrite (on a separate page) reads a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Maybe it would be better to work on the existing article with PrinceofPunjab in mainspace instead of pursuing a full rewrite in a user sandbox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. While I appreciate the concerted efforts to maintain consistency among these Academy Awards articles, it may be to their detriment as these keep growing in coverage. The paragraphs for this one in particular have excessive parabreaks in the "Winners and nominees" and "Ceremony information" sections, which have several flow issues and could benefit from another c/e. I suggest adjusting the first para in the lead from "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, which was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," to "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," and I also suggest adding before Kimmel: "The ceremony was directed by Hamish Hamilton." Other than that, I think it may be having an over-reliance on notes, such as in the lead for Kimmel's prior hosting duties and for the Governor Awards' prior date, which could be converted into prose text. There are also plenty of references that would benefit from links to their websites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

I'm puzzled that many images have alt text solely consisting of a full stop. Only the Kimmel image has any alt text more descriptive than that. I strongly recommend adding more descriptive alt text to the rest of the images in the listicle, including those that are grouped together by the {{multiple image}} template; see its documentation for details on adding alt text to such groups of images.

Other than that, all seems good:

• All images except for one are appropriately licensed for either PD or CC; the sole exception—the poster for the ceremony—has a valid fair-use rationale.
• All images are of good quality and contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Sources check out for each image.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over two months without any support, and I'm going to need to close it to keep the queue moving. Feel free to renominate it in the future. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [31].

---

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list I am hoping for enough feedback to get this promoted and learn how to format other elements of this set of list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comments

• Please take a look at PresN's standard comments about table accessibility here.
  • I feel a bit lost. Are you saying that I need to do something about the first column?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Also, take a look at MOS:CONTRAST. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Do I need to find a co-nominator who knows how to do tables. Honestly, I usually ask for help with tables. I can sort of copy one that is similar to mine, but I don't usually try to do these on my own.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That was a long page. ChrisTheDude's query below in clear English was more easily understood. I believe I have addressed this directive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year is a list of" - no article titled "List of...." should start by restating the literal title or using the wording "this is a list of". Find a way to write a more engaging opening
  • I took a stab at that issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    • The article still starts with "This is a list"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

      Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Football" isn't linked until something like the fifth use of the word. I would also suggest writing "American football" in full on the first usage, for the benefit of those of us who call a different sport "football"
  • I have linked college football and American football. It seems that no Canadian players of Canadian football are listed. If I find any Canadian players, I will change to Gridiron football.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• "selected as the most outstanding of the annual Football Academic All-America selections." - what is/are "the annual Football Academic All-America selections"? Without any context/explanation, this is meaningless
  • I have added that selections are based on academics and athletic performance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• "CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT" - what do all these codes mean?
  • Linked-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Can't see any compelling reason for the district names to be written in all capitals
  • Fixed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I found the explanation of the award extremely impenetrable and confusing. You start off by saying there were two divisions for a time before explaining what the award actually is, then you say what it is, then you jump back to talking about the two divisions. You say "Currently, each team selects Academic All-District honorees in eight geographic districts" - who are this team that do the selecting? Also, you set out how a winner is chosen for each district but then don't really give any explanation how we get from that to a single winner.
  • Any better now?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• "From 1996 to 2011 one winner each was chosen from both the College and University Divisions" - the table says it was until 2010
  • The transition was the 2010-11 academic year. Some sports teams were named in 2010 and some in 2011. Football is a fall sport so 2010 is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Most recently, effective with the 2018–19 school year, the College Division was split, with NAIA members now receiving their own set of awards" - there's still only one winner in that column for all subsequent years.......?
  • The split was effective for every sport. For most sports the only thing other than Division I, Division II and Division III is NAIA. For some sorts there are other sets of competitions. I will change this to reflect that for football it was a transition rather than a split.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, the split was suppose to separate out Two-Year College, Canadian Institutions and any other institution not affiliated with the NCAA or NAIA. Canada seems to have been folded into the districts for the other 4 sets of awards for most sports. I think only the At-large awards for sports other than the main 5 for each sex have a 5th category.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Why is there an "other footnotes" section which is completely empty?
  • Fixed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I would reiterate the comment above about colours/contrast. Some of the names are literally unreadable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I have taken a run at the colours/contrast. Let me know of any specific remaining colors-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have addressed your concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Some further comments

• "Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year are [plural] the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete [singular]" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• "For the Division I team" - what's the "Division I team"? Or for that matter, Division I?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Division" => "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Divisions"
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• "However, Football has incorporated" - football is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital letter
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• "men's and women's at-large teams" - what is an "at-large team"?
  • Clarified.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• "One of these twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-Americans of the year is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members" - how can one person (singular) be selected as the team members (plural)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral by Gonzo_fan2007

• Comment I am generally opposed to the overuse of table coloring to convey non-essential information. This list, imho, takes this to an extreme, presenting color schemes (specifically college sports team colors) that are not notable to almost all readers. I am suspect of any decorative coloring in tables, even on the table header, but would oppose this list outright based on the current overuse of colors. I am sticking to just a comment for now, because I don't plan on performing a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • • I am not aware of any polling that team colors are not notable to readers. However, I do have life experience that many sports fans confuse teams when solely refered to by name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:COLOR seems to support alternate referents to teams where it says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information". This indicates that school name and school color could jointly convey the team information. Most sports fans feel very strongly about their school colors. Sometimes it is a strategic element of the game to have all the fans attend wearing school colors. In my experience I have told people that I am a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and had them tell me about the legend of Tom Izzo. I have had people say they saw the game last night on a night when Michigan did not play. To clarify what team I root for I say we are blue and they are green. Some people mix up all the Michigan schools (Michigan Tech, Michigan State, Michigan, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Northern Michigan, Eastern Michigan), but if you tell them the color it is a second way to communicate the information. I have trouble keeping track of the Texas schools myself. Also all the Cal State -- XXX schools. Additionally most list that you might see are only NCAA Division I, but in this case there is much more room for confusion because this list incorporates almost all collegiate sports divisions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, the tables need to be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• I am trying to get help with the sortability at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sortable_tables.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Now, sortable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Further color on team colors for athletics. On WP we place a high priority on affiliating players and teams with team colors in general. E.g. every sports team has clear presentation of its official colors. This is very abnormal for business and commerce in general. Try to find official colors on pages like Interpol, United Nations or any Fortune 500 company like McDonald's or Apple Inc.. In non-athletic business, official colors are not a thing. For athletics they are. Any bio of a player who is currently affiliate with a team has all kinds of automation presenting the official colors of this automation. Thus, whereas in general WP:FL may frown on highly colored list tables, affiliation of players and team is its own genre on WP. Presumably we do this not because affiliation is "non-essential information". Presumably this is a high priority interest to our readers. This list is attempting to uphold the broad consensus on WP that in athletics affiliation is preferably presented in prose and in color.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Further commmentary on why color for this list is appropriate: Yes {{Infobox basketball biography}} and {{Infobox NFL biography}} are examples of very widely used templates used in WP:BLPs of current athletes. Other sports have similarly popular templates with equally prominent color usage. In general, team affiliation is considered a piece of information of extremely high encyclopedic importance. When a player is in the news regarding a trade or a signing, it is often highly contentious with edit warring and special sets of rules. Often page protection has to be invoked. We have seemed to condition the readers to assess team affiliation with both text and color presentation of the team affiliation. This is broadly done and commonly accepted across all sports on wikipedia. Others who spend a lot of time on sports might be able to give you more "color" (semi intentional pun) on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID needs to be followed.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Half of the names don't have {{sortname}} (first table the College Division Winner column) and there are some random ones missing in the second table.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• I am opposing primarily based on the color and WP:FLCR 3c. MOS:COLOR states: Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. - this table fails this. There are so many different colors for the text, you can't identify a link. From an accessibility side, some of the text colors on top of background colors are difficult to read: Susquehanna and Eastern New Mexico particularly. Regarding the use of color, it should be complementary. The use of team colors can be beneficial in a lot of ways. As example would be Buccaneers-Packers rivalry, the table at the end has coloring to show who won and lost, who led a specific decade, etc. We also utilize coloring to better identify a specific team, like the infobox of Green Bay Packers or the {{Green Bay Packers}} template. This is minimal, but complementary use of color. What we have here is a ridiculous number of different schools and colorschemes. The really bad part is that there are so many different colors, that they can't be easily differentiated. Dartmouth, Oregon, Northwest Missouri, Illinois Wesleyan, Ark Tech, and Slippery Rock all have green background, with subtle differences in shade, with white text. From a quick pass, I can't differentiate the schools from each other, so what is the point of the colors? It doesn't help the reader at all. There are countless other examples of almost identical color schemes. Since the color serves no purpose, it is purely decorative (there is something like 73 different schools on this page, each with its own colors). Weighing the decorative nature of the coloring versus the current legibility, for me, it is detrimental the overall ability to read and understand the table. Colors can definitely be helpful, differentiating between two things, highlighting different awards won by people in a table, etc, but not like this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:FLCR, I am a bit confused on this objection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • MOS:COLOR, I have been pondering this one along several dimensions. First, I confess to have often used general colors when colors did populate well or a tertiary school color was necessary for better contrast. I.e., rather than getting the exact hex color shade for a school for red, blue, gold, etc. I just used that word. Thus, many schools have one official hex and one general color for their color combinations. Second, I really contest whether it is useless to have a broad array of colors rather than a handful. I think the best format for the colors can be seen in the 2018–19_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings section of this article. I know this is not a list article, but it is the inspiration for my current vision of the page. The colors are not decorative. They ARE helpful to the reader. There are more than a dozen color schemes there with half of them being shades of red, scarlett and maroon. Colors can be used to identify a specific team even if more than a few different colors exist. Note that the section I am pointing to on that page uses the two colors as the background and cell padding. The text is usually black or white. I think that would be the best format for this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger I think the single color strip, albeit still superficial and not extremely helpful, would at least alleviate my primary concern. I would still oppose with the secondary color included as you have in your sandbox. One question, I understand the bolding of the names, but why are the schools bolded? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
      • I have removed the bolded schools artifact from the prior format, which I believe predated my involvement with the school color element.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
        • I still think the colors are distracting and superficial. That said, I have stricken my oppose and will remain neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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.
  • I did this on March 23 with the other batch of changes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ignoring how the mix of colors is garish, Illinois College, MIT, and Colorado Mines fail accessibility standards for color contrast. You can check colors at [32], but in general gray text on a color is unreadable to people with poor or reduced eyesight. Please swap those text to white.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think I got it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Not to beat a dead horse too much here, but the colors here are plainly unacceptable. MOS:COLOR plainly states that pages should meet at least WCAG AA standards, which require a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between normal text and the background. Some glaring examples: Valdosta State has #000000 text on #CC0000 background, which has a contrast ratio of 3.56:1. Carnegie Mellon has #000000 on #990000, which is a ratio of 2.35:1. Susquehanna: #3366CC on #651C32 for 2.21:1. These are just the obvious examples; it's not fair to expect reviewers to check all of the color combinations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• @MPGuy2824, ChrisTheDude, Gonzo fan2007, and RunningTiger123:, I have finished revising the colors with regard to contrast in the first of the tables ("Two-division era (1987–2010)") by reviewing Module:College color and commenting in the color cell with the contrast number for any non-white text color. I was pondering various avenues for revision until recent discussions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Trying_to_understand_table_stylings with User:Redrose64 gave me better understanding of {{CollegePrimaryStyle}} and {{NCAA color cell}}. I am assuming the background is the primary color and am assessing cell-by-cell whether a non-white secondary color has sufficient contrast. I will get to the other tables within a couple of days unless this first table continues to have a negative consensus.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please consider using this format:

Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)

Year	University Division Winner	School		College Division Winner	School
1987	Kip Corrington		Texas A&M	Grant Jones		Denison
1988	Paul Sorenson		Dartmouth	David Gubbrud		Augustana (SD)

That way all contrast issues are avoided and links can be their normal color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• User:MPGuy2824, I have reformatted as you suggest for the top two tables. It looks clean. I'll get the bottom table soon. I am wondering, if each box could also get the secondary color?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  There seem to be a lot of templates in Template:Sports color templates. See if one of them works. I suspect it would be too cluttered with color though if you add the secondary colors too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)

Year	University Division Winner	School			College Division Winner	School
1987	Kip Corrington			Texas A&M	Grant Jones			Denison
1988	Paul Sorenson			Dartmouth	David Gubbrud			Augustana (SD)

• Thoughts?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Wait. That is only pulling a second color that may be the secondary color. In 2 of the four cases it is pulling something other than the secondary color. More tinkering to come.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year test shows that {{CollegeSecondaryStyle}} and {{CollegeSecondaryHex}}} will pull the secondary color, unless if the secondary color is white, there is a good chance you will pull black (see Denison and Dartmouth, while Texas & AM is OK).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• N.B. I have added some images. Formatting advice is welcome.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You should run IABot on the list. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for over two months without any support, and I'm going to need to close it to keep the queue moving. Feel free to renominate it in the future. --PresN 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• User:PresN, What would I need to do to pursue renomination?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [33].

---

List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the newest UEFA competition and has been a welcome addition to the European football calendar. I'm going to address the big sticking point immediately which is that there are only two entries, soon to be three in a couple of months. The competition is new and guaranteed to run for more years to come, so although it's a small list at the moment, it will swell over the years. While I recognise this may be an issue, I do think this fact should be enough to ensure it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Only one accessiblity issue with the table- you can't use table-spanning cells as a "pseudo header" like you are for "Upcoming finals". Not just for screen-reader software (which won't treat it like a header at all), but even for regular browsers- the sorting doesn't work at all. Easiest fix is to just make that section have 2 tables - "List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals" (which could just be "UEFA Europa Conference League finals") and "Upcoming finals.
• 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 15:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @PresN:, I've just removed the upcoming finals bit, as that does feel like it's WP:CRYSTAL territory. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I think, the reason this isn't being reviewed is because there are only two entries. This list is probably better off as a section of the UEFA Europa Conference League article for the time-being. I am going to nominate it for a merge. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Review

@NapHit:

• "It was envisaged as a way for UEFA to accommodate" -> "It was created by UEFA to accommodate"
• My understanding is that UECL will shift to the (stupid) 36-team group stage along with UEL and UCL next year. As this list includes future finals, this format shift should be mentioned in the prose as well.
• "Matches are held over" -> "Knockout matches are held over"
• "The introduction of the Europa Conference League into European football was announced in 2018, with the competition starting in 2021." is too verbose, try "The competition was announced in 2018, and began in 2021."
• "The competition aimed" -> "UEFA created the competition in order to", i.e. don't personify the competition.
• "Italian and English have won" -> "Italian and English clubs have won"
• Both bullet points under "List of finals" should be removed- the reader doesn't need to have the wiklinks spelled out for them in a second place.
• The RSSSF source does not mention either the venues (for present and future finals) or attendance figures.
• IMO, future finals should be its own subsection in the "List of finals" section. Putting them in the same table doesn't make sense to me, and screws up the sort in most ever column.
  • List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals has a good solution for this
• The "performances" section doesn't have a source- add the RSSSF source here
• Sources look reliable and consistently formatted to me Brindille1 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Brindille1:, I've got most of them and will get the remainder when I'm back at home tomorrow or the day after. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I've got everything now @Brindille1:. Regarding the table, given @PresN:'s comments above, I'm reluctant to model the upcoming finals bit on the Champions League table as I think it doesn't meet MOS:DTT. It does need to be changed as it does mess up the sorting as is. A solution could be to have two separate tables? I think that solves both problems unless I'm missing something. NapHit (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

TIL the pseudoheader is an accessibility issue. In that case two separate tables makes the most sense to me. Brindille1 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ok split it into two tables, @Brindille1: NapHit (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@NapHit I made a few small changes, namely removing the unused columns from the upcoming finals, and adding sub-headers to the "List of finals" section Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Source check from Z1720

With the small amount of sources, I am going to check them all. Version reviewed.

• Checked all sources to verify the information. If not listed below, there are no concerns.
• Ref 2: Could not verify "It was created by UEFA to accommodate at least 34 of its national associations". Where does it say this in the source?
• Ref 4: Article text: "in order to offer more matches for more clubs". Source text "“There will be more matches for more clubs" Suggest that this be reworded in the article.
• Ref 5: I don't know what that chart is trying to tell me so I'll AGF it.

Earwig does not detect any concerns. That's it for my review. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Z1720:, I've addressed your concerns. NapHit (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns resolved. I can support based on source review. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

I'm concerned that the length of this list, two past entries and two future entries, doesn't make this list long enough to qualify for FL status. While there's no de facto number of entries necessarily, the coordinators have chosen not to promote some lists that had more entries than this due to concerns of length. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts on whether this list is long enough (2 events have taken place, 2 are set to in the future) to be considered for promotion @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a fair comment, and it was a bit of a gamble nomninating this with just two entries, soon to be three in a couple of weeks. But the list will go grow every year as the tournament is guaranteed to continue running for a while, and I can't see it being scrapped anytime soon. So it's whether this is justification enough for the list to be promoted. NapHit (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on the fence. On one hand, by following the way other finals lists work, it comes out to 11 rows, which is typically just enough. Even though 3 of those rows are just a repackaged version of the 3rd table. But as you say, the list will grow, so whatever. My bigger concern, however, is whether it could just... go in UEFA Europa Conference League until it's big enough. And the thing is, not only could it, it mostly does- about 2.5 of the four tables are actually in the main article already. I'm not going to take any action for now, and I might feel better about it in a month when the next final happens, but I don't know if Giants has a different opinion. --PresN 00:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the thought that additional tables that break down the smaller table in different ways could contribute. The main article actually has more information than what's included in the list, with the only thing missing being the list of finals. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

• Wikilink all instances of UEFA, ESPN, RSSSF, The Guardian, BBC Sport in the references.
• Add archive links for Refs. 2, 9 and 10.

I don't have qualms about the length of the list, but I'd wait until information about this year's final can be added before promoting. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, and I've nominated a lot of lists, you don't need to wikilink publishers in the refs as long as you're consistent. Happy to be informed otherwise by one of the delegates. I've added the archive links to the refs mentioned above. Thanks for your comments @Sgubaldo:. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we've got the third year in here now. Ehhhh... I'm still hesitant, but this is going to get longer and matches how we handle other similar leagues, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 18:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Nominations for removal

List of Olympic medalists in figure skating

Notified: Parutakupiu

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.

• Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
• None of the tables are accessible
• No alt text on any of the images

Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Happy to allow time for improvements to be made, so striking my vote to delist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, I have begun work on this article today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Pleased to see the progress being made! I'm more than willing to be patient if an effort is being made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)