Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



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

Nominations[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Line of Duty[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Duty is a critically acclaimed BBBC series with a large international cult following. I noticed the table that existed in the parent series article was fairly large and mostly unsourced. Over the past few days I've been working on building this from scratch, and actually haven't looked at the old table at all, solely building this from sources I gathered myself. It feels comprehensive enough to meet the criteria for a featured list, and the article falls within the scope of a good topic I'm working towards, so I'm nominating it. The first two paragraphs are largely background information for understanding of why the awards/nominations were received, while the third paragraph summarizes the list of awards itself.

Note: This is my second current featured list candidate. The other one has two supports as well as a comment from a coordinator that has been addressed leading me to believe it meets the "substantial support" requirement. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Better Call Saul episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have improved this significantly in the past few days. This is my third FLNom, so I feel as I owe it to reviewers to review other noms so I hope to slowly provide a few DBC and enventually provide full reviews. For the WikiCup my other active FLC is a co-nom with User:Lady Lotus Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, which aired on AMC, it premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022. Put a period after AMC and start a new sentence for the premiere and conclusion.
  • Over the course of the series, 63 episodes aired over six seasons --> 63 episodes aired over six seasons
  • The sixth season was split in two parts --> split into
  • Remove the link to AMC in the ratings section. That's a WP:DUPLINK.
  • I suggest hiding the graph for now until that situation is resolved.

That's all I've got. Looks pretty good overall. -- ZooBlazer 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All coments have been addressed except the last one as I couldn't figure out how to do so without removing the graph. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support -- ZooBlazer 04:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers general managers[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following in the footsteps of the head coaches and presidents lists, I now have the general manager list for the Packers. I will pre-emptively state that this list wasn't the easiest, as there are multiple times in Packers' history where there was no GM, but obviously someone(s) still had the authority to act like a GM. This list is based off of what the Packers have established as their own list of GMs (see here and here). Happy to address any concerns or comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • In 1923, a publicly-owned, non-profit organization called the Green Bay Football Corporation -- organization name should not be in italics
  • and serves as spokesperson -- should serve be in the past tense?
  • That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are relevant and provides context for its use in the tables
  • Images are appropriately licensed as PD, as well as AGF on self-published image. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pseud 14, I have implemented both of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in my series of Seattle sports seasons and a streak of basketball lists: the Seattle SuperSonics played 41 seasons in Seattle before they were uprooted by their new ownership and moved to Oklahoma City. This list was rewritten from scratch in a manner similar to the Seattle Storm list that was just promoted. SounderBruce 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • the Sonics had twenty games with crowds larger than 30,000 and drew a league-record 40,172 spectators at a 1980 playoffs game. -- perhaps this can be a separate sentence.
    • Done.
  • at the Tacoma Dome, a suburban arena in Tacoma that was expanded to 16,296 seats. -- I think the city of Tacoma can be dropped since the arena name already provides context and also has a wikilink.
    • Done.
  • The team were below .500 -- I would unlink, since winning percentage is already linked in the third para.
    • Done.
  • That's all I have. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Suggest alt text
    • Added.
  • Image is appropriately licensed
  • Image has succinct caption and relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: Thanks for the review. I have made all of the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by SB19[edit]

Nominator(s):Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully working on two SB19-related lists, here comes my next offering. This is the list, which I overhauled last February, that documents the awards and nominations received by SB19 since their debut in 2018. They have received well over 100 notable nominations from local and international award-giving bodies for the past five years, among which they have won over 70 (which I do believe are the most numbers from any Filipino boy/girl group).[citation needed] They are indeed revolutionary because, apart from transforming P-pop, they have claimed multiple "firsts", from being the first Filipino group to chart a single on World Digital Song Sales to being the first Filipino act to be nominated for the Top Social Artist award at the 2021 Billboard Music Awards.

I am nominating this for featured list because I have stuck myself with the idea of improving Wikipedia's coverage of Filipino artists, starting with SB19, and hopefully bringing SB19 to a featured topic someday! All suggestions and feedback are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 • talkedits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've had a go at barbering the lede; this is what it looked like before. Also, to proactively address something that I think would quite rightly come under scrutiny in a source review: the Twitter ref present in the lede (ref 7 at time of writing) was published by a subject matter expert on tropical cyclones. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be list #7 for me in this series and, provided all goes well, #27 in the series to be promoted. Nothing really different about this list, continues on using the same format as the other first-round pick lists that I've nominated. 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) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together
  • "The Titans used an addition first-round pick" => "The Titans used an additional first-round pick"
  • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"?
  • That's it, I think. Great work once again!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the review @ChrisTheDude!
    • Example text – Fixed
    • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together – I'm torn on this. These paragraphs are broken up the same way in the other lists that I've worked on and I'd like them to be consistent.
    • Example text – Done.
    • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"? – It's meant to continue off of the point of the previous sentence, in that, a first-round selection that was chosen by the team actually chose to sign elsewhere. I've added a couple commas that I hope make this slightly clearer.
    Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the last point, I would simplify it to "The team's first-round pick in 1966, Tommy Nobis, also chose to sign with the NFL instead". Currently the use of the word "additional" implies that they had more than one pick in 1966 (a "main" one and then an "additional" one - does that make sense?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's much better wording, thank you for the suggestion @ChrisTheDude. Fixed now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • The Titans compete in the National Football League (NFL) -- add the parenthetical after the full name, as it is used in many instances after
  • The Titans have selected first overall twice, selecting John Matuszak in 1973 -- just a suggestion, so selected .. selecting doesn't sound repetitive, perhaps an alternate wording for either.
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback and review @Pseud 14! I've made the appropriate changes :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC OlifanofmrTennant[edit]

Ref 48 lists SB nation and Gang Green Nation seperatly as publisher and work/website this is the only citation which does so. Additionally this seems to be a blog site. The about page is just a list of writers. SB nation is a blog hosting network so is this source reliable? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I could have technically listed Gang Green Nation under Vox Media, but thought SB Nation was more appropriate. I did that because it quite clearly advertises itself as a subcommunity of SB Nation. As for the reliability of SB Nation and its subsites, it was discussed most recently here in 2023, and the result was no consensus. Despite it including "Blog" in its name, it's actually a widely used sports news site. Given what was being verified, and that it wasn't the only source used to help verify said fact, it should be an adequate source. Never the less, I've replaced it with two others. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up to make sure all feedback has been adequately addressed @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better?
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means?
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods.

That's all I got hey man im josh. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better? – I put a portion of that in brackets now, let me know what you think.
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence – Yeah, wow, is it ever, eh? I've made some changes, let me know if you think it's decent now.
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means? – I included an explanation of the territorial picks in the paragraph above that which I believe/hope is adequete. Let me know if it's not and I'll see what more I can do.
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead – Good suggestion, done.
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods. – I've used this format across all of the first-round picks. I've added full stops in cases where I didn't feel it flowed well to combine what were essentially two separate and unrelated notes. I'm not sure there's a good way to refactor these in a way that I could apply to all of the lists. I'm not opposed to utilizing a different format, I'd just prefer to do so in a way that can be applied across all of these articles.
Thanks so much for taking a look @Gonzo fan2007! I very much appreciate the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1990[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Billboard's R&B chart moves into a new decade and a lady called Mariah comes along. Something tells me she will go on to be quite successful. Comments as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Among the acts who in 1990 topped the chart for the first time -- I think it can be written as Among the acts who topped the chart for the first time, since the list is about that year.
  • with reported worldwide career sales -- with a reported worldwide career sales
  • his first appearance in the peak position when he duetted with -- perhaps it's better to say as when he featured with
  • with "The Blues", "Feels Good" and "It Never Rains (In Southern California)" -- serial comma (as you seem to use it in this article)
  • That's all from me. Another great list from this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: - thanks for your review. All done except for the second one. "a.... sales" wouldn't make grammatical sense as "sales" is a plural word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh[edit]

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 9 sources match what they are being cited for

The only thing I could find is, based on the reference, the song "Misunderstanding " should be "Missunderstanding". Great job as always Chris! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list because I think it's a well-formatted list and because it's my favorite team! The prose has been updated to give an overview of the team, the competitions they play in, and their history. The table gives a detailed overview of each season and their record. I took inspiration from List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which is a featured list for another MLS team. Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • Wikilink the first usages of "league" and "conference".
    • I think both of these are MOS:OL, as they both should be understood most anyone reading the article, but I don't feel strongly and added the links.
  • In the table heading use Template:abbr like in the Seattle Sounders list.
  • Is the league column necessary in the table? They have been in the same league since their establishment.
  • What is QR2 and QR3 in the USOC column.
  • In that same column, the sorting is weird, Ro32 is shown as better than Ro16, and RU is shown as worse than SF. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, addressed each of these. Added QR2 and QR3 to the key. Brindille1 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • The top goalscorer column is sorting based on the nationality rather than on the player's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it now sorts by last name. Brindille1 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !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. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is fixed now. Brindille1 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of erinaceids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, y'all, with #36 in our perpetual series of mammals lists: hedgehogs! Also gymnures, collectively making up the family Erinaceidae. This kicks off the four families of the order Eulipotyphla, and I've started with a small one at only 24 species. These guys are pretty cute, and more importantly were fairly easy to source. As always, this list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Erinaceidae is an family" => "Erinaceidae is a family"
  • "A member of this family is [....] and include" - doesn't seem to be grammatically correct
  • Wikilink arthropod? Slightly obscure term.....
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

I love hedgehogs and this looks like it will be a fun image review :D saving this space – should have something more substantial here in the next couple days! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up as promised:
  • I'm a little concerned that File:Erinaceus amurensis.jpg lacks authorship information, and the source URL is a dead link. I was able to find archived versions of the site, but I can't figure out where the image would be. I did find a potential alternative on Commons, but the little critter's face isn't clearly visible because it's pointed down away from the camera – could that still be workable?
  • Swapped- I agree, the lack of author information or direct link seems suspect
  • Not a dealbreaker but I think A. albiventris and A. algirus could be represented by higher-resolution images. I found an excellent A. albiventris photo on Commons. There's also this A. algirus photo that I just cropped from a larger upload (although I do love the belly-up pose in the current photo).
  • Swapped both
  • Alt text looks good across the board.
  • With the exception of the aforementioned E. amurensis photo, licensing and authorship check out for every image used.
Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Swapped all, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No prob – looks good to me! My only remaining comment is that the E. roumanicus range looks more like it's in blue than gray, though I'm wondering if that's just a matter of perception. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Changed to blue- that's actually what it says in the article, it just looks more gray to me on my screen? It's blueish gray, either works. --PresN 13:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
  • Reminding me of the fact that I have not done any bird lists in a while.
  • "A member of this family [...] includes" is still ungrammatical.
  • Fixed again
  • Conversion error on the 1 cm tail multiple times throughout the article.
  • I'm not sure on this- "1–3 cm (0–1 in)" is a little odd, but 1 cm is almost 0 in. The tails are between 0 and 1 in, just not actually 0. Do you have a suggestion?
  • Why isn't the 2023 study splitting H. suillus into 6 spp included? Also, you've missed linking the article for the nominate ssp in the list.
  • This list (and all of them) follow the WP:MAMMAL standard of "use MSW3's taxonomy, unless both the IUCN and the ASM agree on a change". The IUCN, however, is much more conservative about changes than the ASM- just because a paper is published with a taxonomy revision doesn't mean that it follows it (yet). Unfortunately, wikipedia editors often split up articles based on individual papers instead of following that guideline, so it doesn't always align. Linked the Javan ssp, though.
  • Bornean short-tailed gymnure has an image of a live specimen, see that article.
  • Image updated.
  • Replied inline. --PresN 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could increase the number of sigfigs in the convert template and see if it helps? AryKun (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: Done; not 100% on it, but it does solve the "0 in" issue. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DRC has five sites on the main list and for tentative sites. Four sites are listed as endangered. Standard style and formatting for WHS lists. The photos could be better but since these sites are somewhat more difficult to reach than in some other places, I guess what is currently on Commons will have to do. Feel free to suggest better alternatives. The list for Zimbabwe is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • The legend for endangered sites is the color and a cross, but an asterix is used in the table for those sites.
  • "it has the highest biodiversity among national parks of Africa" - needs a ref since it is not mentioned in the UNESCO refs provided.
  • "It is home to mountain gorilla" to "It is home to animals such as the mountain gorilla" OR "species like the".
  • "as well as threatened primate species chimpanzee," to "as well as threatened primate species like the chimpanzee,"
  • wikilink "subalpine" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! Tone 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of games by Supermassive Games[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 06:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive Games is the company behind games such as Until Dawn, The Quarry, and The Dark Pictures Anthology. I figured it was time to change things up a little and nominate my first video game list for FLC. -- ZooBlazer 06:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The studio published their first game, Big Match Striker in September 2010" => "The studio published their first game, Big Match Striker, in September 2010"
    Done
  • "Supermassive worked on multiple games that utilized" - as it's a British company, that last word should be spelt "utilised"
    Done
  • "both of which released in 2010" => "both of which were released in 2010"
    Done
  • "In 2012, the studio partnered with BBC" => "In 2012, the studio partnered with the BBC"
    Done
  • "BBC announced the decision" => "The BBC announced the decision"
    Done
  • "However, another partnership game with BBC" => "However, another partnership game with the BBC"
    Done
  • "releasing two spin-off titles; Until Dawn: Rush of Blood (2016) and The Inpatient (2018) for PlayStation VR, Sony's virtual reality headset" => "releasing two spin-off titles, Until Dawn: Rush of Blood (2016) and The Inpatient (2018), for PlayStation VR, Sony's virtual reality headset"
    Done
  • "The first game, Man of Medan, released in August 2019" => "The first game, Man of Medan, was released in August 2019"
    Done
  • "Supermassive released the standalone game, The Quarry in 2022" => "Supermassive released the standalone game The Quarry in 2022"
    Done
  • Titles which begin with "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
    Done
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for another great review. I think I fixed everything. -- ZooBlazer 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

In addition to Chris's comments above

  • Pete served as CEO -- I think CEO needs to be written in full (lower case)
    Done
  • BAFTA Award for Orginal Property -- perhaps it should specify that it is the BAFTA Games Award for Original Property (also typo on original)
    Done and fixed
  • for PS VR - should be written in full (since you write second instances in full too, from what it looks like i.e. PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4), or if using acronyms, it should be consistent.
    Changed it so only the first instances are written in full
  • Supermassive released PS5 -- same as above
    See above
  • Initially the games -- comma after initially
    Done
  • Ref(s) = Reference(s) in the table title
    Isn't that what it shows? It says reference(s) when clicking on ref(s). Or are you talking about something else?
I made the edit - it says references instead of reference(s) (sorry for the nitpick)
Image review: Passed
  • Dont use px sizes (use "upright=numeric value" instead)
    Done
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images are relevant
  • Images have alt text. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Thanks for the review! I addressed/commented on everything above. -- ZooBlazer 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple edits so it's quicker. Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14 Thanks for the support! For some reason I was reading the reference thing as already saying reference(s), which is why I was so confused. -- ZooBlazer 18:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Happens to the best of us! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Not a full review, just a question: I've done a lot of "video games by company" lists, so I'm familiar with the various formats used and have usually used wikitables for companies with more like 100 games (e.g. List of 3D Realms games) and templates like {{Video game titles}} for ones with more like 35 or less (e.g. List of id Software games). There's no set guideline, I'm just curious if it was a specific choice for this list or if you went with a wikitable by default. --PresN 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN I edited the table that was at Supermassive Games and I think I just cleaned it up with a version of what is at List of games by Epic Games. I was already looking at the article since that was the one that helped me with naming this one. -- ZooBlazer 21:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of roles and awards of Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After recently expanding the main article of Filipino singer Rachelle Ann Go, here's her work and awards list which I have lumped into one article, tailored to FLs like List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac and List of roles and awards of Catherine Zeta-Jones. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • for which she won the Myx Music Award for Favorite Mellow Video - I think this is missing a ref. The ref before mentions being nominated, but doesn't mention winning, while the following ref doesn't seem to mention the award at all.
As a note, the lead doesn't need to be cited if the information listed are in the table. This is Ref 57 in the awards table
  • earning the Awit Award for Best R&B Recording - Also seems to be missing a ref.
Same Ref 45 in the awards table
  • For the production, she won the Star Award for Revival Album of the Year, and garnered nominations for Female Recording Artist of the Year and Female Pop Artist of the Year at the 2009 ceremony. Another single from the album, "This Time I'll Be Sweeter", earned her a Best Mellow Video nomination at the 2010 Myx Music Awards - Same issue for all of this. If it's in ref #7, then my bad. That ref is only partially translating for me.
Ref 63 in the awards table. Ref 7 supports her "guest role" on Diva
  • She then became a mentor in the reality talent show Protégé: The Battle for the Big Break (2011) - Ditto as above.
Ref 26 on the television table
  • She won the BroadwayWorld Philippines Award for Best Actress in a Musical for the role - Ditto
Ref 49 on the awards table
  • For the show, she received the BroadwayWorld UK Award for Best Featured Actress in a New Production of a Musical - I don't see this in either of the following two refs.
Ref 50 on the awards table
  • winning Best Female Performance in a Long-Running West End Show at the BroadwayWorld UK Awards - Ref?
Ref 51
  • For her performance in the latter, Go won a BroadwayWorld UK Award for Best Actress in a New Production of a Musical. She has since reprised her roles in various productions and tours of Les Misérables (2019–2022) and Hamilton (2023–2024). Needs a ref or refs.
Ref 52 for the award, and Ref 38 to 41 for the last sentence in the lead.

Overall, it seems like a lot of stuff isn't cited in the body of the article, although I'm pretty sure at least some useful refs are in the tables below. -- ZooBlazer 06:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: thanks for your review. Generally, anything mentioned/supported in the tables don't need to be cited in the lead. Awards, filmographies, discographies, and similar types of FLs such as this are examples (List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac, List of roles and awards of Angeline Quinto, List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway). Let me know if I missed a ref that doesn't support prose in the lead. Happy to revise otherwise. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Huh, that's the first I've heard of that, although I'm still relatively new to FLC. Happy to Support since you brought up all the refs that cover the info. -- ZooBlazer 16:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer: thanks for your support. I believe, similar to standard articles, list articles also conform to MOS:CITELEAD, where everything that is repeated in the body or tables don't need to be cited. As long as it is supported in the body, having citations in the lead section is optional, but is also allowed if it is a preference :) Pseud 14 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "She signed with Viva Records and worked with producer Eugene Villaluz for her self-titled debut studio album" - "She signed with Viva Records and worked with producer Eugene Villaluz on her self-titled debut studio album" would be more natural English
Done
  • "received the MTV Pilipinas for Favorite Female Video." - surely the awards weren't simply called the "MTV Pilipinas", which was the name of the TV station? Surely they were called "MTV Pilipanas Awards" or similar? The title of our article on the awards suggests so.....
You're right, the award is called "MTV Pilipinas Music Awards", but the wiki article for the specific award I think was improperly named. I've corrected it to MTV Pilipinas Music Award for Favorite Female Video
  • "starring as the titular fictional character." - I think just "starring as the titular character" is fine. I don't think we need to clarify that the titular character in a show about a mermaid is fictional :-)
Lol, this made me laugh. Very true. Revised.
  • In the awards table, "MTV Pilipinas Music Award" should be "MTV Pilipinas Music Awards"
Done
  • "at West End's Sondheim Theater in 2019" => "at the Sondheim Theatre in London's West End in 2019" (note the UK spelling of theatre)
Done. Also got a question, with proper nouns, if outside of the UK and they are written as Meralco Theater, should I retain that? Or as a matter of consistency use Theatre? (I would guess the British vs American variation only applies for usage as a common noun)
  • You would simply use whatever the actual name of the place is. So, if you were writing about New York you would use Hayes Theater because that's how it's spelt, but you would use Hudson Theatre because (for some reason) that's how that one is spelt -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for clarifying. This makes perfect sense now. And thanks for your edits on the main article too. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking on the review ChrisTheDude. All comments actioned. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and your time in reviewing. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh[edit]

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

Review notes:

  • Note that my review does not include a review of the references to television episodes, as that's not a format that I'm familiar with or have evaluated before, so I'm assuming good faith in this instane.
Thanks for raising that. I believe it was in this similar nomination that a reviewer highlighted that we could use Template:Cite episode, which is also generally acceptable for information such as cast and personnel credits, episode titles, etc.
  • Refs 15 and 37 are the same
Thanks for catching this. Fixed
  • Refs 8 and 22 are the same
Also fixed. I don't know how I missed that too.
  • Ref 41 – Include |location=Abu Dhabi
Added
Done
  • Ref 61 – Needs a url-access tag, similar to that of ref 42's
I believe the url-access tag is already in place.

That's what I've got. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Hey man im josh, and for looking into the references. All actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: gentle poke ;) Howdy! Just checking in if everything has been addressed satisfactorily? Pseud 14 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not noticing your response @Pseud 14! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all and thanks for the review and support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1983/1984[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in the series of professional snooker ranking list nominations. The list took tournaments other than the World Snooker Championship into consideration for the first time. I can't claim that it is among the interesting of list articles, but hopefully it's close to meeting the criteria. I can provide extracts from relevant sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Just one thing: when it says "....would receive one "merit" point if they had reached the last-32 of the World Championship", presumably that must mean any of the three world championships relevant to the rankings? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reviewing this. I realised that although the merit points were awarded at one time, I can break it out to show which tournaments they relate to. I'll ping you nce I've done that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude I've broken out the merit points per tournament, and tweaked the wording. (You may have a better form of words for me than "in scope"). Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • A ranking list for the 1983/84 snooker season -- for consistency, I think this should be written as 1983–84 snooker season and similar to how 1976–77 season is written.
  • (1981, 1982 and 1983 World Snooker Championship) -- World Snooker Championship can be dropped, since it is already described as such in the preceding statement. I would also suggest linking it to the 1983 article, if that is the same competition it refers to.
  • Amended. I didn't link to 1983 as it is linked shortly beforehand, but can add an additoonal link if you feel that would benefit readers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my bad, I don't know how I missed the first instance. Should be good then. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (which were those ranked lower than 28th) -- I think this can be written into the statement without the parenthetical
  • Amended to use commas - I'm open to other suggestions. 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Image review: Passed

  • Image has alt text
  • Image is appropriately licensed
  • Image has succinct caption and is relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Hello I will preform the source review and look at all nine of the sources and confirm that they are accurate. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • REF1 Snooker Scene reliable  Pass
  • REF2 Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, reliable has been archived and info matches Pass
  • REF3 Global Snooker Centre Pass
  • REF4 Snooker Scene reliable Pass
  • REF5 Snooker Scene reliable Pass
  • REF6 The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History seems relaible Pass
  • REF7 The Cruel Game reliable Pass
  • REF8 Snooker Scene reliable Pass
  • REF9 Birmingham Evening Mail reliable , I would link to it though Pass
  • SUPPORT Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, OlifanofmrTennant. I've linked Birmingham Evening Mail. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

96th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

I promised a full review, so here's one now.

  • No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime
  • 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)
  • "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording
  • "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead
  • 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)
    • In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later
  • Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)
  • 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
    • Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section
  • "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories
  • "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)
  • "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics
  • 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)
    • "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
    • "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)
    • "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"
    • "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)
    • "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)

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)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For quite some time I have been working on List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks and at this point I think it meets all of the FL criteria. There are three items I want to pre-emptively bring up in this nomination though, for clarification:

  1. Unlike some other starting quarterbacks lists, this list does not include any statistics. Imho, statistics other than games, starts and QB record is superfluous to this topic and better covered in existing list (in this case, List of Green Bay Packers records, which is described and linked in the See also section). Yards, passes, etc are all accumulated regardless of whether a QB starts or not. Note, WP:FLCR #3(c) states that a FL should not largely duplicate material from another article.
  2. There are two existing team quarterback start FLCs: List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks (passed in Nov 2009) and List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks (passed in Jan 2023). You will notice that both utilize a static table instead of a sortable table. I chose a different style table for a couple reasons: first, this is a list of players (specifically starting QBs), thus I feel like the reader expectation is a list of quarterbacks, not a list of seasons. Second, the sortable table provides a lot more functionality to understand who started the most games, who had the best record, etc. I believe this layout also speaks more closely to satisfying WP:FLCR #4 Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  3. Unlike the two existing team quarterback start FLCs, the Packers history dates back well before 1950. In my fairly exhaustive research, there are no reliable sources showing quarterback starts or win/loss record prior to 1950. PFR doesn't list them and even in individual player pages, it only shows total starts, not starts by position (and no QB record). Let's take Arnie Herber, the premier passer in the early era of he NFL. Cliff Christl said this about him: "Although inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a quarterback, Herber started only two games there during his 11 seasons with the Packers, and both were in his rookie year". Herber started as a right halfback for most of his career. Thus, for this list, the cut-off is 1950, when my source (PFR) provides reliable information showing QB starts. All other pre-1950 Packers QBs aren't included (note, {{Green Bay Packers starting quarterback navbox}} still has these included; assuming consensus forms here on this issue and this FLC promotes, I would then utilize this list to update the template).

With all that said, I appreciate any feedback and look forward to addressing any concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for

Source review comments:

  • Ref 23 – I'm not sure I understand why this is listed as Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as the newspaper. Packersnews.com is part of the USA Today network according to the site.
  • Refs 16 and 33 – Duplicate source (Lynn Dickey packers.com)
  • Refs 17 and 54 – Duplicate source (Bart Starr packers.com)
  • Refs 15 and 52 – Duplicate source (Tobin Rote packers.com)
  • Refs 18 and 35 – Duplicate source (Brett Favre praises staff... Sports Illustrated)
  • What makes quirkyresearch.com a reliable source?
  • I know we talked about the history.com source, so I assume you didn't find a better one. If it helps, I've got a couple sources ([1], [2]) from the PFHOF that I think would be adequate to verify the portion that the history.com source is there for. Could at least be good to supplement the existing reference, if not replace it.

A relevant and confusing point from the Packers' media guide that supports the 1950 cutoff: Prior to 1950, most players played both offense and defense... Backs were listed as quarterbacks, halfbacks and fullbacks, but were often interchangeable on offense, especially in Curly Lambeau’s Notre Dame Box system. It's no secret that it's painful to determine who was the "starting quarterback" and, as you mentioned, oftentimes teams did not have a quarterback start the game. I've found the same issue that Gonzo did when trying to make up similar lists and determine a player's position, but it gets real murky prior to 1950.

Good work Gonzo, I like how the list came together! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hey man im josh, I think I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the reminder and reference to replace the History.com one. The MJS was just my bad, changed to PackersNews. I replaced QuirkyResearch as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Wikilink "quarterback"!!
  • Wikilink "line of scrimmage"
  • "the significance of he position" - missing T off "the"
  • "with team's assigning significant resources" - there should not be an apostrophe in teams
  • "The emergence of he dual-threat quarterback" - T has gone missing agaimn
  • "Five of those quarterbacks though have started over 75% of the team's games" - can you find a way to reword this to convey what I think you are trying to get across? Saying "five QBs started 75% of the games" could imply that QB1 started 70% and the other four 1% each.......
  • "Tobin Rote, the team's primary starter in the 1950s and" - needs a comma after 1950s
  • "and the Lynn Dickey" - *the* Lynn Dickey?
  • "Tobin Rote started 73 games as the Packers quarterback in the early 1950s." - aprostophe needed after Packers
  • Same in the Starr caption
  • Re: winning %, I presume that ties were/are not included in this stat? Because Bratkowski's four wins out of nine games doesn't equal 50%. Might be worth clarifying this in the tooltip.
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review ChrisTheDude, the only comment I have a question on is the "75% of the games" comment. I see what you are saying, but looking at the preceding and following sentences, I think it makes sense. I state that 33 QBs have started for the Packers, then say that of those 33, 5 make up 75% of the total QB starts. The following sentences then list out those QBs. I think in your example, if one of those QBs started 70% of the games, I would say that instead of saying 5 started 75%. I think the idea is that 5 QBs started 75% of the games, while the other 28 started 25% of the games. This dichotomy of that is the takeaway, with clarification provided in the following sentences and the table. I did make a slight change to the sentence after to try to clarify. Do you have any specific recommendations? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "Five of those quarterbacks each made over 100 starts and between them started over 75% of the team's games"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • ChrisTheDude, I made the change (although its over 70 starts for each). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I only looked at the top four rows in the table (when sorted in descending order of starts) because apparently I can't count to five :-D Anyway, happy now to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • They are members of the North Division of the National Football Conference (NFC) -- the acronym in the parenthetical can be dropped as this is not repeated elsewhere in the article or the tables.
  • Starting in 1950, total wins and losses by a team's starting quarterback began being tracked. -- Perhaps some tweaking here so it doesn't become repetitive. Something like Beginning in 1950, total wins and losses by a team's starting quarterback were tracked
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Pseud 14. I made your first suggested change. Regarding #2, I left it in there because I feel like "NFC", at least for general football fans, is more readily noticeable than the full "National Football Conference". I also did this because North Division is actually linked to NFC North. Thoughts? MOS:ACRO notes common exceptions for something that is more commonly known by its acronym, which I think NFC is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes sense to keep it then. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have alt text
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Drive by comments

Comments[edit]

  • "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
  • "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"
  • "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
  • "CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT" - what do all these codes mean?
  • Can't see any compelling reason for the district names to be written in all capitals
  • 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.
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Why is there an "other footnotes" section which is completely empty?
  • I would reiterate the comment above about colours/contrast. Some of the names are literally unreadable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have addressed your concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments[edit]

  • "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
  • "For the Division I team" - what's the "Division I team"? Or for that matter, Division I?
  • "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"
  • "However, Football has incorporated" - football is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital letter
  • "men's and women's at-large teams" - what is an "at-large team"?
  • "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)[reply]

Oppose by Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • Also, the tables need to be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID needs to be followed.
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • 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 [3], but in general gray text on a color is unreadable to people with poor or reduced eyesight. Please swap those text to white.
  • 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)[reply]

List of Dallas Cowboys first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my 6th in the NFL team's first-round picks series and, if all goes well, it'll be the 26th list in the series promoted. I will, as always, do my best to respond quickly and address all comments, questions, and criticisms. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • team based in Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. -- based in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex
  • defensive tackle from TCU -- perhaps the university name and the team name should be written in full on this instance.
  • Suggest alt text to File:Super Bowl 44 Emmitt Smith image.
  • That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great feedback @Pseud 14! I've implemented all of your suggestions. Thank you very much for the review =) Hey man im josh (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "have played their home games at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, since 2009" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "Dallas traded their 2008 first-, fifth, and seventh-round selections" - shouldn't there by a hyphen after "fifth" as well?
  • That's all I got! Great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "have played their home games at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, since 2009" - don't think that comma is needed – Wouldn't WP:GEOCOMMA apply?
      • Apparently it would. This is a new one on me but then of course I am British and we don't have an equivalent to writing "X has done Y in Arlington, Texas, since [date]" because we don't have states...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dallas traded their 2008 first-, fifth, and seventh-round selections" - shouldn't there by a hyphen after "fifth" as well? – Good catch, fixed and found another instance of this mistake as well. Did a ctrl+F to try to find any other similar mistakes and I think we're good now.
    Thanks so much for the review @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Gotta hand it to you Josh, you've been an absolute machine with these first-round draft pick lists. I should have an image review done in the next couple days! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've already got another 3 prepped and should be finished the last 3 in the series by the end of the week :P Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, that is seriously impressive – talk about planning ahead! Image review passes, details below:
  • All images present are licensed either CC or PD. I wasn't able to access the original Flickr upload for the Irvin photo, but the Commons editor who confirmed the license is one whose judgment I trust, so I am going to AGF.
  • All images have suitable alt text. It might not hurt to mention in Aikman's alt text that he is wearing a suit since such is mentioned in the alt text for Smith's photo, and roughly equal amounts of their suits are shown in frame, but that's a minor point.
  • All images are high-quality and contribute encyclopedic value. I like that White is shown wearing a cowboy hat – it's only fitting!
  • All captions are well-written, and the sources verify the information that they're used to cite.
Support on images; excellent work again! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've seen the Parsons photo that was added after this review, and it also ticks all of the above boxes. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (Passed)
  • Not source related, but Note R says for their 1993 fourth-, eighth, and two second-round selections, which is sort of confusing. What were the fourth and eighth picks? Also are you missing a dash after eighth?
  • Not source related, but consider adding one more photo of a recent draft pick? Micah Parsons or CeeDee Lamb maybe?
  • Ref 41: what makes Inside the Star reliable? It is a blog, right?
  • Otherwise, all sources appear reliable, are consistently formatted and all spot checks looked good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonzo fan2007:
    • I was missing a dash. This particular trade included two second-round picks, which made it difficult to word and I tried to dance around it.
    • Recommend rewording, it still doesn't make much sense. Maybe to the Green Bay Packers in exchange for both of their 1993 second-round selections, as well as a fourth- and eighth-round selection in the same year (Nos. 46, 54, 94, and 213 overall).
    • Added Parsons
    • Removed, apparently ref 41 was redundant after looking into it.
    Thank you very much for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One other comment: List of Dallas Cowboys seasons seems superfluous in the See also section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded it again, based on your feedback. I do personally think that the list of seasons is relevant to the list of picks, as each season determines the picks that teams will have in the very next season, but I recognize that not everybody feels the same way. For now, I feel as though it's harmless if not potentially beneficial for some. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, source review passed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Women's World Cup finals[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's World Cup wrapped up a few months ago, but I've had my eye on improving this list for a while and decided to dedicate an evening to doing just that tonight after watching the W Gold Cup. The list's existing elements were all preserved while a substantial amount of prose with good citations was added; most of it was modeled after the list of men's finals, a relatively ancient FL, with some modern tweaks. (This is my second concurrent nomination, but my first has three supports.) SounderBruce 06:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments
  • "continental competitions alongside the hosts, who have an automatic berth" to "continental competitions, alongside the hosts who have an automatic berth"
    • Fixed.
  • "the two remaining teams beyond the semifinal round" can be simplified to "the two winning/successful teams of the semifinal round, "
    • Reworded to use "advanced from the semifinal round".
  • " The hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2023" - a word got eaten somewhere.
    • Fixed.
  • See if you want make the country name into a header cell in each row. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the comments. I have implemented the prose suggestions and added header cells to the rows in the second table, as I assume that was the subject of the last comment. SounderBruce 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Yup, that's what I meant about the header cell. I should have been clearer about the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Ref 14, 17, and 20 – Needs url-access parameter specified, as when I visit the links I'm being told I need a subscription to view them.
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for

Other comments:

  • This could do with a run of iabot
    • Will do so once a few of the sources are archived by the Wayback Machine.
  • Missing row scopes in the results by nation table.
    • Fixed.
  • They key calls out "Match was decided during extra time", but this isn't used anywhere in the list.
    • Hidden until needed.
  • Caption for the 2023 final image could use a period at the end.
    • Added.

That's all I've got, good stuff as always SounderBruce! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the issues that were pointed out. SounderBruce 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, support! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "it was retroactively given the World Cup moniker" - maybe say what it was actually billed as at the time?
    • Added the name, which is quite silly.
  • "The United States are the most successful team [...] Germany has two titles" - one is plural but the other singular?
    • Moved USWNT to singular.
  • "The most recent final, hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2023" - both nations didn't host the final
    • Fixed by moving the final's article to the bit after the semicolon.
  • "The original FIFA Women's World Cup Trophy is used for the final match" - how is it "used" for the final if it isn't presented to the winning team? Is it just displayed at the stadium or something?
    • Added that it is awarded but otherwise kept at the museum.
      • So, to clarify, the winning team gets two trophies? Currently the article says "The team that wins the final receives the FIFA Women's World Cup Winner's Trophy, which is engraved with the winning team's names. The original FIFA Women's World Cup Trophy, awarded to the winning team", which makes it sound like two different trophies with (slightly) different names are involved, but both those links redirect to the same place and I couldn't figure out the answer from that section. If it's indeed correct that they get two trophies, then I would change "awarded" to "which is also presented" in the second sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChrisTheDude: There are two trophies; I have rewritten the section to hopefully make it a bit more clear. FIFA keeps the original, and a replica is given to the winner (presumably through the federation). SounderBruce 08:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's all I got, great work as ever SB! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review! I didn't see this one initially in my watchlist, but have finished the changes before I head out on a road trip. SounderBruce 08:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 pole-sitters[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this list for the past ten months so that it is fully referenced, verifiable and more accessible. Feedback will be taken into account and acted on as fast as possible. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Puebla[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 43 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. 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) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops don't know how I missed that, but it's fixed now. Mattximus (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824's comments
  • "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal) by a plurality voting system who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents." to "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal), by a plurality voting system, who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) which is responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents." Done
  • "user fees" might need a wikilink (or an explanation). Done - the wikilink is actually quite good.
  • a couple of refs seem to follow the y-m-d format for dates, while most of the article seems to follow mdy. This should be consistent throughout the article. Done MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All changes made, thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) " - this Spanish word is not in italics, but others are.....? Done
  • That's it, I think! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, that was an easy fix! Mattximus (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Planning to review this, but I'll probably wait for MPGuy2824's reaction (I see they are away until the 25th). Also, just want to be clear that I don't read Spanish, so my review will be more in the nature of checking-the-boxes, and I'm hoping someone will look at this who can read the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by TV Patrol[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its format is almost identical to another one (which is a newscast) with the same class, List of accolades received by 24 Oras. Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the newscast's anchors changed significantly during its run" - if it is still being broadcast I would say "the newscast's anchors have changed significantly during its run"
  • "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment and weather" => "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment or weather" (current wording could be interpreted as saying that there is a single segment which deals with entertainment and weather, which would be intriguing but I assume doesn't happen :-)
  • That's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I am objecting to the "Wins 47 / Nominations 97" in the infobox, for reasons I have explained at Template talk:Infobox awards list#Totals should be avoided. Despite some canvassing, I have not received any feedback there, positive or negative. This !vote in the nature of a test case to spur discussion there. Basically, if the template is changed as I suggest then the FL criteria will change. It would be a simple matter to simply remove those two parameters from the infobox on this and other similar articles. jnestorius(talk) 11:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, please strike oppose? This issue has been resolved. Chompy Ace 20:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is not arithmetic; 44/100 is just as arbitrary as 47/97. jnestorius(talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, I removed it, so done. Could you please strike oppose or give support? Chompy Ace 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks jnestorius(talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ireland women's cricket team record by opponent[edit]

Nominator(s): RoboCric Let's chat 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all the criteria. I think it has enough content and an organized list to get the featured status. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 13:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • There's a fairly evident copy & paste error where it says "Year of the first match between New Zealand and the listed opponent" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I am sorry for the error and I have corrected it. Please check it now. RoboCric Let's chat 01:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

  • "They are full member" => "The team is a full member"
  • "They participated in Women's Cricket World Cup" => "They participated in the Women's Cricket World Cup"
  • "resulting 49 victories" => "resulting in 49 victories"
  • "They have played the most number of matches (25)" => "They have played the highest number of matches (25)"
  • "against the Netherlands in Women's Cricket World Cup" => "against the Netherlands in the Women's Cricket World Cup"
  • "Although in April 2021, the ICC awarded permanent Test status to all full member women's teams"> "Although the ICC awarded permanent Test status to all full member women's teams in April 2021"
  • "when they played against the West Indies in a one-off WT20I at home" - you need to write W20TI in full the first time it's used, the same way you did with WODI
  • "Ireland have met with Pakistan for the most number of occasions"> "Ireland have met with Pakistan on the highest number of occasions"
  • "they have defeated Zimbabwe for the most number of times (6)"> "they have defeated Zimbabwe most often (6)" (this avoids using "highest number" again.....
  • "against whom Ireland have suffered the most number of defeats" => "against whom Ireland have suffered the most defeats"
  • " losing all of their 17 matches they played" => " losing all of the 17 matches they played"
  • How come there's nothing in the "first" and "last" columns of the WODI table for Netherlands and New Zealand?
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Done. Fixed all. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

SZA discography[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SZA. You might know her from "Kill Bill" or "Snooze", or the fact that she has a whimsical name that rhymes with sizzle and scissor, or the dozens of passe jokes about how she lies all the time. She has been in the game for over a decade, changing the contemporary R&B (and now pop) scene as she goes with her highly acclaimed works. Her first two albums are in Rolling Stone's GOAT list, and the first one (2017) has never left the US charts. Dive into her relatively short discography here. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

I'm going to take a look at this in the coming days. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • The lede feels a bit short, even for someone like SZA with a relatively small discography. It jumps right into a rough chronology of her works without providing much of a background for the beginning of her career. I looked back through solo discographies that have been featured within the past year or so and noticed that those of Angeline Quinto and Esmée Denters both give a brief description early on of how their respective careers began. In SZA#2011–2014: Career beginnings and EPs, it is mentioned that SZA met Top Dawg reps in 2011; after See.SZA.Run and S, she signed with the label, which then released Z. Maybe something about this could be incorporated into the opening paragraph?
  • There's a bit too much early mention of SOS for my liking. Mentioning that Ctrl was a constant presence on the Billboard 200 even through the release of SOS is pertinent and reasonable, but the final sentence of the first paragraph puts SOS's inclusion on the Rolling Stone top 500 list into focus before there's any mention of what she released in between the two albums. It jumps forward to 2023 when the surrounding text details the 2017–18 timeframe. The sentence itself is written just fine, but it feels like something that should be at or near the end of the lede instead of where it is right now.
  • ...and has charted for over five subsequent years: Replacing "over" with "more than" would work better here.
  • SZA appeared in some film soundtracks: in → on
  • The expected upcoming release of Lana should probably be mentioned in the lede.
  • Since there is prose later on pertaining to unreleased songs, I would recommend adding something about this to the lede as well.
  • The table in §Music videos needs a caption, both per MOS:DTAB and in keeping with the rest of the tables.
  • To maintain consistency with the rest of the table captions, a comma should be added after the "list of [release type]s" clauses in the captions for the second and third tables in §Albums; the word "selected" should also be added to the second table caption.
  • For whatever reason, the UK Singles Chart source (ref 17 at time of writing) makes no mention of "No Love"; however, that song's UK chart position is verified by the song's page on the UK Charts' website.
  • Sources need to be added to the entries for "Easy Bake" and "Never Lose Me" in the table at §Guest appearances – I was told in a previous FLC (granted, this was 7 years ago) that wikilinking the articles isn't enough to verify the information.
Everything else looks great. Aside from the MV section, the tables are all properly formatted. I am impressed by the usage of hover text to elucidate the meaning of each chart initialism. IIRC it is unusual for discography articles to have prose in any sections other than the lede, but §Unreleased songs is a stellar example of how it can be done. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, @Dylan620. I hope everything has been addressed. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much better. The only additional improvement I can think of is that you might want to expand the MV table caption a bit to mention other column fields, such as the years and directors. Aside from that, this looks just about good to go. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

The article looks pretty good to me, so I mostly.just have nitpicks.

  • "From 2017 to 2022, as SZA prepared for her second studio album's release, she appeared on a few film soundtracks" --> You could probably remove "a few"
  • "with 3.172 million units sold" --> Is it normal to use three decimal places in these types of articles?
  • "The next release after SOS is Lana" --> Does it make more sense to say "will be"?
  • "Originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, Lana evolved into its own project, which..." --> Lana was originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, but evolved into its own project, which...

Image review[edit]

  • File:SZA14 (13458538654).jpg is the only image used.
    Properly licensed
    Use in article obviously makes sense
    Usually with FLC and FAC reviews I prefer alt text to be more than "Refer to caption", but I'll leave it up to you to keep or change it.

That's all I have. Like I said, mostly nitpicks. The article is in pretty good shape, which I expect coming from you. If you have the interest and time, I also have an open FLC if you'd like to have a look. -- ZooBlazer 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 10:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe has five sites on the list and two tentative sites, so this list is on the shorter side. Standard style. The list for South Africa is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPguy2824's comments
  • "One site is transnational, the Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is shared with Zambia." seems a bit odd. you can either replace the comma with a semi-colon OR go with "Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is the only transnational site (it is shared with Zambia).
  • Consider linking "dry season".
  • " In dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with the predators such as lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as Nile crocodile." to " In the dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including the African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with predators such as the lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as the Nile crocodile."
  • "Eastern black rhinoceros lived here at the time of inscription but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere." to "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to live here at the time of inscription, but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere."
  • Will do a full prose review later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Will wait for a full review before fixing, easier this way :) Tone 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with trade links to China, Persia, and Kilwa Kisiwani. Kilwa Kisiwani doesn't seem to as important as the other two large areas. If it is important to keep, then add ", in present-day Tanzania" to the end of that sentence.
  • "abandoned around 1450" to "abandoned around the year 1450"
  • "Like the latter, it was built in dry stone technique in a similar architectural style" to "Like the latter, it was built using the dry stone technique and in a similar architectural style".
  • "and was an important regional centre of trade, with porcelain form China and Spain found among archaeological remains" - split this part into a new sentence and correct "form" to "from".
  • "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates massive waterfalls, with the width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and the maximum height of 108 m (354 ft)." to "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates a massive waterfall, with a width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and a maximum height of 108 m (354 ft).".
  • "Falling water creates" to "The falling water creates".
  • "created in millions of years of erosion" to "created over millions of years of erosion".
  • Wikilink "Kopje".
  • "in different manners" to "in different ways".
  • "the life of foraging people" to "the life of the foraging people". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! I changed the link of Kilwa Kisiwani to the Kilwa Sultanate, since this was a power that ruled most of the east African coast at the time and is thus important. Tone 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the predators" - remove "the".
    • "Kilwai Sultanate." to "Kilwa Sultanate, on the east coast of Africa."
    • "cut into a basalt rock" - Remove the "a"
    • See MOS:CIRCA and use in all the places where it applies (I noticed 2). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, thanks. I haven't been using the MOS:CIRCA style earlier but it is convenient for future reference :) Tone 15:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Mana Pools are" => "The Mana Pools are"
  • "the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities" => "the floodplains are an important refuge for large mammal communities"
  • "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to lived here" => "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to live here"
  • "Matobo Hills feature" => "The Matobo Hills feature"
  • "representing one of the densest concentration" => "representing one of the densest concentrations"
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! Not sure what are you suggesting with the rhinoceroses? Tone 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take the d off the end of "lived" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, silly me :D Fixing now. Tone 21:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of James McAvoy performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for FL everything I spent a bi of time painstakingly sourcing everything on the page. I reached out to another editor (@Lady Lotus:) to co-nominate this with me and they agreed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC[edit]

  • I'll do a full review later, but as a drive-by comment I can see both "shared role with" and "shared roles with". Pretty sure it should be the former every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

More comments[edit]

  • "The following year, he starred in Kevin Macdonald's drama film" => "The following year, he starred in director Kevin Macdonald's drama film" Done
  • "the collective title of three films split into three parts" - so the three films were each split into three parts? For a total of nine films? I don't think that's what you mean...... Done
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort the "year" column back to chronological order, "TBA" jumps to the top, which isn't right. Until such time as it has a confirmed date, you'll need to use a sorting template to make it sort last. Done
  • "The Sandman" sorts incorrectly in the TV table Done
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

In addition to Chris's comments above

  • I would drop The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and link it to 1950s novel instead so it won't appear repetitive. Done
  • In most cases I'm guilty of this too, but avoid WP:OFTHESAMENAME as much as possible -- McAvoy was cast as Charles Xavier, based on the Marvel Comics fictional character would be better Done
  • I would also refer to X-Men First Class as where he was cast in the role first. i.e. -- McAvoy was cast as Charles Xavier, based on ..., in the superhero film X-Men First Class, or somewhere along those lines. Done
  • In the next sentence, you could then state that he reprised the role or he returned to play the role in the film series installments and list them... Done
  • Stephen King's 1986 novel of the same name. -- Stephen King's 1986 novel or the 1986 novel by Stephen King are possible ways to write it. Done
  • I was wondering why there is only one line in the last paragraph discussing his stage credits. Perhaps this can be expanded and lumped into the lead, as he appears to have at least four Laurence Olivier nominations among the many roles he played, which suggests that it may be notable and perhaps worth including. Done
  • That's all from me. Great job on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few edits. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. Done
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1993 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I waffled a bit on whether now was the right time to submit this – I currently have another timeline FLC outstanding, which admittedly hasn't progressed as much as I would've hoped by now – but I am confident enough that this timeline meets the FL criteria that I have decided to submit it anyway. One of the things that makes the 1993 Pacific hurricane season stand out is how many of its storms went on to reach high intensities; out of 15 total storms, a whopping 60% became major hurricanes! Two of these reached maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h), the highest of any storm this season, at the same time. While there was unfortunately some adverse impact – most notably from Hurricane Calvin, which was a disastrous event for the Manzanillo area – there were also several long-lived and powerful hurricanes that largely remained out to sea with no harm to life or property. That kind of storm is, I would like to think, any meteorologist or storm tracker's favorite type of hurricane.

This timeline was largely modeled after the 2018 and 2020 Pacific hurricane season timelines, both of which are FLs. I have worked to apply feedback from the other FLC to this timeline as well. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update to note that the subject of the previous FLC to which I referred in the nomination blurb, Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season, has since been promoted – I believe this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline and I hope the community agrees. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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

Source review comments:

  • Refs 7, 9, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24 – These refs are defaulting to the archive link in sources instead of the source that's still live. Please add <code>|url-access=live</code> to the references.
  • Ref 10 – Wikilink National Hurricane Center
  • Ref 16 – For consistency with ref 1, wikilink Miami, Florida
  • There are 34 instances where the references list "(GIF) (Report)" and 5 instances (refs 7, 10, 22, 23, and 24) where the "(GIF)" portion is listed next to the link to the original source while the "(Report)" part is listed next to the archive link. In all these instances the original sources is still live but needs that designation. For consistency, this should be fixed so that all 39 refs that use "(GIF)" and "(Report)" do so consistently.

Thanks what I've got. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this, Josh! I believe I have addressed your comments. I actually noticed the issues you brought up in your first and fourth points in my other FLC as well, but couldn't figure out how to resolve them; I'm glad to have solutions! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I didn't realized I hadn't responded to this. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, the use of ";" to make psuedo-headers is not acceptable. It's ironically fixable in two opposite ways: either make them actual headers (e.g. ====June 1====), or make them actual bold text (e.g. June 1), but the semicolon is for a list thing that you're not actually doing, which messes up screen-reader software. --PresN 04:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention! I've replaced the semicolons with level 6 headers (the header size which looks identical to semicolon headers/bold text) and added {{TOC limit|3}} higher up the page. It's a different approach from the last few timeline FLs, which simply use bold text, but I figured it was one worth trying. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like WikiCleanerBot didn't like this and converted the level 6 headers into level 4 headers... I think I'm going to keep it that way for now, in the hopes that it would make for easier accessibility than bold text. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1982 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 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, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • Consider linking ABC in the lead.
  • "comedian Bob Hope hosted for the" => "comedian Bob Hope hosted the ceremony/show for the".
  • "viewers in the United States" Should end with a full stop.
  • Vanessa Redgrave is first mentioned in the "Winners and Nominees", but isn't linked there.
  • "was held at the same exact location and the same date 50 years later of the first meeting by the organization." => "was held at the same location as the first meeting by the organization, exactly 50 years later."
  • "controversy from Jewish group for its anti-Israel commentary". which Jewish group?
  • "both Jewish Defense League protestors burned" makes it seem that there were only two protestors.
  • "The Color Purple has since equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins." to "The Color Purple later equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins, in 1986."
  • Rest looks fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Done - I've ready your comments and made the appropriate changes to each comment.
--Birdienest81talk 07:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude
  • "acting, directing, screenwriting for the same film" => "acting, directing, and screenwriting for the same film"
  • "And we couldn't think of anyone better than anyone better suited" - some repeated words there
  • "In celebration of both the fiftieth anniversary of both the Academy and the Oscars" - don't need to say "both" twice
  • That's all I got in addition to what MPGuy picked up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ffranc
  • The lead section contains original information and does not summarise the entire article. It summarises the winners but there is nothing about Redgrave's speech and the reception.
  • The article is inconsistent in its use of words and numerals for numbers. It says "50th Academy Awards" and "40th ceremony" but "nineteenth time" and "fiftieth anniversary". Considering the article title, you should probably stick to all numerals, with the exception of film titles and 0-9 (per MOS:NUMERAL).
  • The info about the original works in Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium is not on the Oscars.org page. You need another source.
  • The original works are inconsistently linked: the ones with a different title from the movie get a link, but not Equus (play) which also has an article.
  • Change Pentimento (book) to Pentimento: A Book of Portraits to avoid redirection.
  • Add a piped link for La Femme et le pantin/The Woman and the Puppet or change to the English title, which the Wikipedia article is under.
  • ...Redgrave remarked in her acceptance speech,"And I salute you, and I pay tribute to you, and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you've stood firm, and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums." There is a space missing. It's unclear who Redgrave meant with "you" here; this could be resolved with some explanatory word or by quoting more of the speech. The quotation is cut off. According to other sources, the sentence continued: "...a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression." Either expand it to the full sentence or make it clear that it is not the full sentence.
  • Remove unnecessary words like "moreover" and "additionally".

Nothing more that I can spot, other than the things others already have mentioned. The sources I looked at check out, with the exception of the part with the original works, and assuming good faith for all the ones I can't access. (You've written 1982 in the nomination, but the article is about the 1978 Oscars.) Ffranc (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of Victoria[edit]

Nominator(s): GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a list containing so much information and history about Australian/ Victorian politics. There are very few FAs and FLs in the Victorian Politics wikiproject. (peer review) GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Most of them are fine, but the three sub-headers (Took office, etc.) need the !scope=col, and the Term of office cell should 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. ! rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1 becomes !scope=row rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Along with that, you currently have two cells per row set as the header- the Premier cell should have a | instead of a !.
  • 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 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done –––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Consider moving the Electoral district/constituency to its own column. The name column is quite cluttered right now.
  • Consider mentioning that Allan is only the second woman to hold the post.
  • If you make the table sortable then List of premiers of Victoria by time in office can just be redirected here as you can get the same information by sorting on the relevant column.
  • Don't see any problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thank you for your suggestions. The reason I put the constituencies in the name column was to be consistent with the List of prime ministers of Australia. I am happy to change it, let me know your thoughts. I have now added the fact Jacinta Allan is the 2nd female premier of vic (this edit).
    As discussed in the peer review, making the table sortable isn't possible due to vertical cell mergers with the monarch/governor column and also for when premiers have served multiple, separate, non-consecutive, terms. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table in the List of prime ministers of Australia is sortable and is a recent FL (from December 2022).
    • Also, to me the governor seems like a ceremonial office and not particularly relevant to this particular list. Maybe the governor/monarch column can be removed. Please take the opinion of other folk before doing this though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In relation to the List of prime ministers of Australia table, when you go and sort the table, it kind of stuffs it up. I have also just discovered vertical merges around the 'Election' columns which will cause further issues if made sortable. I have tried to seek consensus in the past to remove the column without the discussion gaining any traction, I will try again in the articles talk page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and List of prime ministers of New Zealand have the constituency within the name column as well, so there is precedent. Regarding the governor and monarch column, I think its important to keep the governors because the governor directly appoints the premier. I wouldn't mind removing the monarch column though. Steelkamp (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

List of Cobra Kai episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because as a streaming television series this series has beat all the odds. Television series that are sequels to former film series typically don't fare well, which can be seen with the animated Karate Kid TV series. Those that do, rarely feature large appearances from the original cast. It was also essentially cancelled by YouTube yet managed to find a new service to stream on. On top of that, it survived COVID-19 and the double strikes of 2023. As the original film approaches its forty-year anniversary it feels like the proper time to nominate this. I recently expanded the lead on this, and with the addition of the sixth season table, I believe it should be a featured list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Cobra Kai is an American comedy-drama and Martial arts television series" - no need for capital M on martial
  • "the first four films in The Karate Kid (franchise)," => "the first four films in The Karate Kid franchise,"
  • "picks up 30 years after 1984 titular film" => "picks up 30 years after the 1984 titular film"
  • "The series first season" => "The series' first season" (or "The first season of the series")
  • "The series first season premiered [....] and released a second season the following year on April 24" - the first season did not release the second season, so this does not make sense grammatically
  • "on the then renamed YouTube Premium" => "on the renamed YouTube Premium"
  • "as Daniel LaRusso and Johnny Lawrence, respectively" - that comma isn't needed
  • "After the series concludes, Sony is" - this doesn't really work grammatically. If I have understood the context correctly, I would suggest "Sony is developing a sixth feature film to be released after the series concludes"
  • "a sixth feature film that chronologically includes the 2010 reboot film" - the sixth film will not include the 2010 film, so this doesn't work grammatically
  • "Cobra Kai has received critical acclaim[31][32][33] receiving" - comma needed after "acclaim"
  • "with each respective seasons release" => "with each respective season's release"
  • "As of September 9, 2022, 50 episodes" - that date was nearly 18 months ago, is the sentence still accurate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. The sentence is still accurate, per the template instructions that date should only be updated when new episodes air/release. That is the release date of the most recent season. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the template you're using (in the season lists), visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the Episode table template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{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 03:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added, thanks for the reminder! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ZooBlazer
  • this was delayed to 2024 - The season was delayed to 2024
  • the end of the first while Thomas Ian Griffith - Add a comma after first
  • As of September 9, 2022, 50 episodes of Cobra Kai have been released, concluding the fifth season. - This can be moved to the beginning of the episodes section.
  • It should also be sourced.

That's all I have. Good work on the article. -- ZooBlazer 18:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your first two points as well as the last one. I'm hoping the third one won't keep you from supporting? I'll move it if I have to, but it's common practice across most List of Episode pages to use this template near the end of the lead. See [4], [5], [6], and [7] which are all featured lists and have this sentence in a similar location. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. Support -- ZooBlazer 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colorado state symbols[edit]

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list for featured list because it is a complete, fully referenced, and well organized presentation of the symbols of this state. This list has been peer reviewed at Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_Colorado_state_symbols/archive1#List_of_Colorado_state_symbols Thank you,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the lead only one sentence? Speedy fail of criterion 2. WP:FL#United States state symbols has six that are featured, those can be starting point examples.
  • I'm not sure why this particular stamp is considered a state symbol; I found at least five other stamps [8][9][10][11][12] that are for the state. I'd remove, as well as the quarter (America the Beautiful quarters also has one for CO).
  • USS Colorado (1856) is named after the river, not the state
  • I don't think any of the List of United States Navy ships named after US states are state symbols anyway.
  • Is there a reason the "image for the motto" is just the motto in all caps, bold, and "V" for the "u"?
  • "The Centennial State" is also not an image, just use a dash if there isn't a suitable free image.
  • The citation for this nickname does not address the adoption of the nickname.
  • I would not include coat of arms as a symbol unless there is good sourcing specifically for it beyond its implicit use as part of the seal's design.
  • Footnote 1 is not loading for me.
  • I'm not sure why "United States Department of Agriculture" is the 'Adopted' for the soil. Does that mean the USDA chose this soil on the state's behalf?

Reywas92Talk 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You've done a great job with the List of Indiana state symbols.
  • I've added to the lead. I'm not sure the list lead needs to contain information that is also included in the list entries themselves.
  • This is still not adequate, surely there can be other ways to summarize the topic like in the other examples.
  • I don't know what you mean by that. This stamp was issued to celebrate the state's centennial. My first linked stamp was issued to celebrate the state's 75th anniversary. I'm not convinced stamps are considered state symbols, at least not only this one in particular. The 50 State quarters honored each state with an issuance, but these also aren't the same kind of state symbols as the rest of the list, and none of the other FLs include them.
  • The entry for the USS Colorado (1856) explains that the ship was commissioned before the creation of the Territory of Colorado.
  • Right, so again, why is it listed here as a state symbol? It was named after the river, not the state, so it's not a state symbol by any stretch.
  • Right....it includes List of U.S. state ships, which are ships respective state legislatures have named as their official state ships. It's not just any ships that were named after states, a common practice by the Navy. Colorado has not designated a state ship, and I don't think the ones named after it are necessarily state symbols.
  • The state motto is in Latin and classical Latin had only one letter V. The letter V was not separated into the letter V for the consonant sound and a new letter U for the vowel sound until the Middle Ages.
  • Yes, I know that but why did you put that here? Are there any Colorado-related sources that spell it this way? Moreover, that's not an image, so why are you just restating what's in the Symbol column in the Image column?
  • I think the nickname text is adequate.
  • It says "Centennial State" in the Symbol column and then "The Centennial State" in the Image column. But that's not an image so what's the point of duplicating it?
  • I think the explanation of the nickname origin is adequate.
  • No, it's not. The citation there is simply the proclamation that verifies the date Colorado became a state, but it doesn't verify when the nickname was adopted. Did people immediately start calling the state that – What's the origin there? Also the wikilink redirects to Colorado so it's not very useful.
  • I think the explanation of the adoption of the coat of arms is also adaquate.
  • No, because when I look up CRS 24-80-901 in Lexis cited there, it just describes "Size and description of seal", not that a coat of arms was adopted. Just taking those elements from the seal doesn't mean the state has ever used a coat of arms itself, and I don't think the implicit design should be considered a symbol separate from the seal without the state having ever designated it. I add a cn tag to Seal_of_Colorado#Coat_of_arms; what use has there been besides in this 1876 book?
  • Thank you for letting me know about this. I've updated Footnote 1.
  • The Department of Agriculture has designated a state soil for each state. Please see State Soils. The Indiana state soil is Miami Soil.
  • That says "Each state in the United States has selected a state soil, twenty of which have been legislatively established." I'm assuming Colorado is not one of the legislatively established states, but that still implies the state selected it, not USDA.
  • Also, I don't think license plates count as state symbols either, these can change regularly. Reywas92Talk 15:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for your suggestions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !width=140px| Type becomes !scope=col width=140px| Type. 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. |[[Historical armorial of U.S. states from 1876|Coat of arms]] becomes !scope=row |[[Historical armorial of U.S. states from 1876|Coat of arms]]. 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 03:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment

The lead is still too short I'd say. I don't believe you saw that Reywas92 mentioned this (they didn't sign the comment, so I understand missing it) after your initial response to them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a description of the creation of the first insignias of Colorado.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly[edit]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this list up to the standard of the Tripura FL. Criticisms and suggestions for improvement are welcome. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

I'm going to take a closer look at this in the coming days. I do have a couple comments for now:

  • and the Constitution lays down the general principles of positive discrimination for STs.[4][2]: 35, 137 – it seems a little odd that ref 4 appears before ref 2 here.
  • Mizoram was converted into a state, and the number of constituencies for its legislative assembly was increased to 40. – this should be directly followed by a source to back it up, especially since it's at the end of a paragraph.

Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these two. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MPGuy2824. I have some more feedback:
  • The prose is generally well-written, but I see a couple incomplete sentences in the first table and would like for those to be fleshed out a bit.
    Done
  • The 2011 census of India stated that indigenous population constitute 95% of the state's total population. – mixed verb tenses here.
    Fixed
  • Images need alt text.
    Fixed
  • I am completely unable to access ref 23, which is the source for an entire column of data in the second table :/
    I've added an accessible ref for each row now.
  • It may be worth mentioning that while the legislature to make Mizoram a state was passed in 1986, the statehood was not effected until 1987.
    Done
  • In order to maintain consistency with the other refs, the websites and/or publishers should be wikilinked (if possible) in refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (which is missing these inputs), 9, 10, and 11 (ditto).
    Fixed
  • Refs 7 and 11 have date formats which are inconsistent with the rest of the refs. You may wish to consider adding {{use dmy dates|date=March 2024}} to the top of the page.
    Done
  • In ref 2, I'm not sure if "Legislative Department" should be in italics.
    Fixed
  • In ref 1, the "live" URL redirects to a directory of legislative assemblies in India.
    Changed the reference
  • The article states that the assembly is elected in five-year intervals, and that is indeed the case from 1993 onward, but election intervals before then seem to be irregular. Is there a way this could be explained?
    Info added to lead. Tell me if you think it makes more sense to move the text to the History section.
  • On a less critical note, the sources that I successfully checked did verify the information they were used to cite.
That's what I've got for now. You've done a great job here, but I'm not yet at the point where I would feel comfortable supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replies inline, but I think that all the points that you brought up have been fixed now. Thanks for the thorough review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's much better! Thank you for addressing my concerns. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 21:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of government of Liechtenstein[edit]

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the past year I have worked to improve this list to it's fullest potential by filling a great deal of the biographies, images and accurate information. While my work is not quite done, and may not be for a while, I believe this article fits the FL criteria in recognition of my efforts. TheBritinator (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Lead is too short and should be expanded
  • "The head of government [....] is the title of the head of government" - this wording is quite clumsy.
  • If the title of the head of government is "head of government", where does the title "prime minister" fit in?
  • "Provincial administrator (1861–1921)" - if the translation of the German title is "state administrator", why is the heading "provincial administrator"?
  • In the Provincial administrator (1861–1921) table, why are there dashes not numbers against two of them?
  • Why are two of the cells in the first column of that table coloured?
  • "Prime Minister (1921–present)" - why is this the heading if the title of the post is "head of government"?
  • In this section, why do some of the rows not have numbers in the first column?
  • Why are some of those cells coloured?
  • Why do some of the rows have a buff-coloured background?
  • In the Deputy head of government table, what does FBP stand for? VP? VU?
  • Why is there a dagger against Nigg's date of leaving office?
  • There's only one ref in each of the first two sections - does each ref really source everything in each section?
  • There are no refs at all in the Deputy head section
  • Ref 1 has an "author" of "www 20minuten ch, 20 Minuten, 20 Min, www.20min.ch", which obviously isn't the name of the person who wrote it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright noted, those are mostly left before my time and untouched by myself, but I can get to work on that no problem. As for the "dagger", it's a cross to indicate death in office, I didn't add it, but I've also seen similar things done is contemporary articles so I paid no bother to it, could be made into a note instead however. The two administrator's with dashes were due to them being provisional or unofficial, this could also be made into a note if nessesary.TheBritinator (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude I have attempted to address most of the things you have pointed out, may you give an updated opinion? Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "The head of government of Liechtenstein (German: Regierungschef), or informally as Prime Minister is the" Seems weird, maybe "The head of government of Liechtenstein (German: Regierungschef), known informally as the Prime Minister is the" works better.
  • "It is appointed by the sovereign". I think "They are appointed by the sovereign" works a bit better.
  • "the Landtag of Liechtenstein and is to command the confidence of both the prince and Landtag." "should command" or "is expected to command" works a bit better.
  • "but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, only eligible." to "but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." or "although they have the same eligibility requirements for that office", depending on which is more accurate. Also, add a ref for this.
  • All tables need to have captions. Use the sronly template, if you think it isn't appropriate to show the caption.
  • The table in the "Deputy head of government" section could have the name column converted into a row header.
  • The use of the phrase "born-died" isn't consistent across the tables. Is this phrase even needed. Please look at a few recent-ish FLs on a similar theme and use what is used there.
  • The Monarch column in the PM section isn't the most important one and shouldn't be the row header. Maybe the name column
  • That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some problems still remain:
    • The monarch column is still a header in the List of PMs.
    • In some tables the political parties have their colors next to them, while some don't. This should be consistent across the whole page.
    • In the list of deputy PMs, one of the "Independent" cells doesn't not have the right color which matches the other similar cells. You can consider using the Template:Full party name with color to keep colors consistent.
    • The first table says "born-died", while the other two say "Birth-Death" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan=2| {{abbr|No.|Number}} becomes !scope=col rowspan=2| {{abbr|No.|Number}}. 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. | bgcolor="{{party color|Independent politician}}" |'''1''' becomes !scope=row bgcolor="{{party color|Independent politician}}" |'''1'''. 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 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN I have taken the time to add these things as you have recommended. In addition, I have fixed most of the wording and citations that were pointed to me by @MPGuy2824. May you verify that I have done this correctly? I believe I have as I checked other recent FLs, but I would like to make sure. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed a couple things, which I've fixed. --PresN 01:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. TheBritinator (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBritinator: are you still pursuing this nomination? It appears that not all of MPGuy2824's concerns have been addressed (I just fixed one, but the monarch column is still erroneously a header (! instead of |). @ChrisTheDude: Do you intend to return to re-check your review? --PresN 14:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am yes, I was waiting for further input. I can take another look at those fixes. TheBritinator (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Role (campaign two)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second time nominating; since the previous nomination closed, all outstanding suggestions have been incorporated (plural verbs fixed, links to monsters/concepts added in episode summaries, additional images). In terms of major new additions, the Production and format section has been expanded with a new paragraph on filming/set design (to go with corresponding image) and there's a new subsection on the 3 specials that have since aired (with corresponding images). There are 3 new plot sums (for the specials) and the Reception section has a new paragraph on set design & objects used in play. I'm really hopeful that the episode list will be promoted this time. Looking forward to the reviews! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho
  • "Dungeons & Dragons web series Critical Role" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Same with "Critical Role Productions' Twitch".
  • Any particular reason why the lead doesn't list Apha alongside Twitch and YouTube?
    • When addressing the blue links above, I rephrased to include Alpha. Let me know if it is unclear. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a unique article in that it uses "campaign" as a disambiguator rather than "season" or "series", I'd consider removing the season number parameter from the infobox and adding |season_name = ''Critical Role'' (campaign two) to override it, just so the infobox title matches the article title.
  • I'd also suggest adding the cast members to the infobox using the |starring= parameter.
  • The networks should be broken up using {{plainlist}} per the infobox instructions.
  • In the first sentence of the production section you utilize military time, but the lead uses twelve-hour time. I'd make it consistent either way.
  • Just to clarify, was there a YouTube livestream on Critical Role's channel, or was it only available there after the Twitch broadcast? If there was a YouTube livestream:
    • Was the Twitch overlay only available on Twitch or was it also available on the YouTube livestream? If it wasn't available on the YouTube livestream I'd change that portion of the sentence to read something along the lines of "but it is not available on the YouTube platform or Twitch video on demand (VOD) viewers."
      • There was a YouTube livestream so I've clarified on Twitch overlay. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did the YouTube livestream have auto-generated captions as well? If so, "VOD" in that sentence should be replaced with "broadcast".
  • "Mercer is positioned behind a gamemaster's screen In the inset portion" de-capitalize "In".
  • Portions of the first few paragraphs in the production section don't feel like production information? It is relevant, but perhaps would be better suited in a "Release" or "Broadcast" section per MOS:TV.
    • Moved paragraphs 1 & 4 into a new Broadcast section. Slight rephrase. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image referencing the four-camera setup needs alt-text.
  • Wikilink Skeleton crew in the COVID section.
  • I assume DM in this section refers to Dungeon Master? If so, I would add that as an abbreviation in parenthesis in the cast section ("Campaign Two had eight cast members—seven players who form an adventuring party and the Dungeon Master (DM)").
  • Underneath the Episodes section header add {{see also}} and point to List of Critical Role episodes.
  • The episodes lists should utilize |LineColor = #FFDD00 so that the line color matches the table color.
  • Wikilink Streamy Awards in the Accolades section.
  • An additional link to the 11th Shorty Awards may be useful here, perhaps "Shorty Awards (11th)" or something along those lines.
  • Wikilink spin-offs in the adaptation section.
  • "sourcebook Explorer's Guide to Wildemount" is another BLUESEA.
  • References:
  • Add the following categories: Category:2018 American television seasons, Category:2019 American television seasons, Category:2020 American television seasons, Category:2021 American television seasons, Category:Television productions postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Category:Television productions suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic
  • This article isn't about the channel itself, so I'd remove Category:YouTube channels launched in 2018

The amount of prose in this article almost leads me to suggest that it should be at WP:FAC instead, and I'd likely insist if it was a typical series with ~15-20 episodes. But with, 141 episodes I can see why it's here instead. Regardless, I commend the work that's been done here so far and want to say good work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I somehow missed it in my watchlist but I'll take a look now and start updating over the next few days. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how to add alt text to the 4-cam image since that's not parameter in Template:Image frame; the example uses |base_alt= but that didn't work when I tried it. If I have time tomorrow, I'll take a look at some of the image template options to see how to fix it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you set it up like this: [[File:Critical_Role_C2E98_"Dark_Waters"_screenshot.png|250px|thumb|right|Four camera layout during an ocean battle scene in the Episode: "Dark Waters".***INSERT CITATION HERE (''I had to take it out of the code box due to errors, it's the same citation currently cited in the article'')***|alt=InsertAltTextHere]] it should work. The "thumb" in the link makes it a thumbnail identical to the frame template. Unbulleted list appears the same as plainlist, and is given as an option in Infobox instruction so that works for me! That said, it doesn't need updated to plainlist, but if you're curious; I believe the only reason that plainlist didn't work for you is because the bulletpoints (*) have to be flush with the left side of the code editor, you can see an example with this article and can see how it appears in the editor. Given the updates made, I'm inclined to support assuming that the alt text and references sections are dealt with. Once again, fantastic work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the code issues! I always forget that the bullet points can be persnickety. I've updated the image format & added the alt text. I'll ping when I'm done with the references. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: I believe I fixed all the refs (except 46 which doesn't have an author). I relied on ctrl-f to find the ones you called out but I sometimes transpose lines when working in the source so I would appreciate a double check to make sure I didn't miss any. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Apologies on 46, not sure what happened there. Striking what I said above since all of my comments have been addressed to reiterate my Support. Best of luck with any future reviews! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the template you're using, visual captions can be added by putting |caption=This is a caption in the Episode table template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{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 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: I looked at the tutorial but I'm not entirely sure if what I did is enough. I added |caption={{sronly|List of episodes in 2018}} in the first episode table which is similar to the caption in the episode table at Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 1). If that caption is enough, I'll replicate it in the other tables. But if not, I would appreciate additional guidance. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that works fine, though it turns out this template works differently than others, and the "sronly" isn't needed, as the caption is always hidden- so you can do just "|caption=List of episodes in 2018" if you want. --PresN 04:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool! I removed the "sronly" & added captions to all of the episode tables. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [13], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:

  1. Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [14], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
  2. Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023. Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.
  3. Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament. Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.
  4. The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves

The tables themselves have multiple problems too:

  1. The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
  2. The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
  3. "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information

As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [15]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons[edit]

Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
  • 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
  • 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland Browns seasons[edit]

Notified: Omg its will run, WP:NFL, WP:CLEVELAND, WP:USA & WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy (While the National Football League (NFL) does not recognize the Browns’ AAFC championships, the Pro Football Hall of Fame does recognize the team’s championships, which is reflected in this list.)
  • 2. Lead: the lead appears a little short considering other season lists. There are also some links that need to be added (like Detroit Lions, Pittsburgh Steelers and wild-card round. Just generally needs some clean-up. Could also use a photo in the lead.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and within the table. Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table and the legend.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Commanders seasons[edit]

Notified: Jwalte04, WP:NFL, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Commanders subproject, WP:USA & WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy (the opening sentence is self-referencing), the first paragraph especially could use a good rewrite
  • 2. Lead: there are also a ton of duplicate links in the lead. Some clarifications are needed (was their worst record based on total losses or winning percentage?)
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I am currently working on it. Hopefully, I can fix the issues mentioned above. Jwalte04 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I have made a bunch of improvements to the article. Hopefully I did all that was required. But please let me know if you have any other suggestions to make this article better! Jwalte04 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jwalte04, amazing job. This looks so much better. I have some specific comments below:
  • Super Bowl XXVI is linked twice in the lead
  • Recommend that the hasktag symbol (#) be superscript (#) to avoid things like NFC# where it doesn't look like a symbol and looks like part of the acronym.
  • Unless it is a purely explanatory note (as an example Does not include postseason victories would be a purely explanatory note), it should have an inline citation.
  • There are sentences in the lead that don't have an inline citation. Each sentence(s)/paragraph should end with an inline citation.
  • The totals in the last row of the table don't line up with their respective columns.
Thanks for taking this on, you've done a great job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we are all set! Jwalte04 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jwalte04, I have no more comments. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates[edit]

Notified: Marylandstater, Y2hyaXM, WikiProject Maryland

2007 FL which, unfortunately, has not stood the test of time. Concerns on the talk page have been met with silence. Firstly, the last paragraph of the lead is unsourced. The list is also tagged {{no footnotes}} and, indeed, uses general references. Overall, this shouldn't be very hard to rectify, but as it stands, this fails 3b and is not exemplar. (I'm also concerned about the very-near-total reliance on a single source, but that isn't any criterion I know of and it's perfectly reliable.) QueenofHearts 09:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]