Jump to content

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 another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or a delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

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. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions.
  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.
Reviewing procedure

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

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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:

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations

[edit]

Lists of Green Bay Packers players

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, I decided to set a challenging goal for myself: make every list under WP:PACKERS a featured list. Well ladies and gentlemen, here we are. With the expected passing of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers all-time roster/archive2, all that is left to reach this goal is Lists of Green Bay Packers players. The passing of this list will also achieve a secondary goal: finishing a Green Bay Packers players Featured Topic! This list of lists provides the summary lead list for the larger topic. Now this list is not tabular in form, but still meets all the requirements for a standalone list and for the featured list criteria. As always, I am happy to address any comments quickly. Thank you for taking the time to review and making it possible for me to achieve this goal! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my sixth Olympics medal table and I'm happy to be back at it again. I believe it's all encompassing, reflects the relevant information, and meets all of our criteria. As always, if there are any issues I'll be do my best to respond quickly and address all criticisms brought forth. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" => "were included as official medal events for the first time"
  • "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" => "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia"
  • "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes?
  • "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" -> "were included as official medal events for the first time" – Good catch, done.
  • "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" -> "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" – Yes, definitely better, done.
  • "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes? – It's meant to represent that the NOCs received at least one gold medal. Well this is doing my brain in a bit... I've used this wording on several FLs now, but I can definitely see it both ways now. Agh, do you have any suggestions?
@ChrisTheDude: Done. I'll make the changes to my other FLs as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile" – Done.
Thanks as always for the helpful review and tweaks ChrisTheDude!

1988 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another medal list for the Olympics nerd^ Feel free to leave comments and I'll reply to them as soon as I can! Arconning (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Other combat sports, which include judo and wrestling, use a repechage system which also results in two bronze medals being awarded. – Check out the results for wrestling, they did have bronze medal matches. Also check out this source which mentions that repechage was introduced for the 2008 games.

I also don't believe your official changes by country is correct currently. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh I believe I'm done, let me know if I have any mistakes.  :) Arconning (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (ec)

[edit]
  • Infobox image caption is a complete sentence so it needs a full stop
  • "while tennis was reintroduced since its removal" => "while tennis was reintroduced following its removal"
  • "athletes representing 52 NOCs received at least one medal, and 31 of them" - 31 athletes?
  • "and 31 of them one at least one gold medal" - won, not one
  • "Suriname's team won their first Olympic gold medal, which is also their first Olympic medal of any color" => "Suriname's team won their first Olympic gold medal, which was also their first Olympic medal of any color"
  • "the gold medal being awarded to Joachim Kunz of East Germany, Israel Militosyan of the Soviet Union, and Li Jinhe of China" - the gold medal was awarded to all three of them.....?
  • "After Grablev and Genchev were stripped from their titles" => "After Grablev and Genchev were stripped of their titles"
  • "He was subsequently disqualified" => "Johnson was subsequently disqualified" (the last person named was Park)
  • What is with the "List of official changes by country" table that just contains Sweden and France? I don't understand this at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Fixed everything hopefully, sorry for the errors! Arconning (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]
  • "Events in boxing result in a bronze medal being awarded to each of the two competitors" => "Events in boxing resulted in a bronze medal being awarded to each of the two competitors" (in case they ever change this, which would make the present tense inappropriate)
  • "Events in judo use a repechage system which also results => "Events in judo used a repechage system which also resulted" (same reason as above)
  • "Three gold medals and no silver nor bronze were awarded" => "Three gold medals and no silver or bronze medals were awarded"
  • "Two gold and no silver medal was awarded " => "Two gold medals and no silver were awarded "
  • "both resulted with two bronzes awarded each due to a third-place tie" => "both resulted in two bronzes being awarded due to third-place ties" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Done! Arconning (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of kerivoulines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #8 and mammal list #49: Kerivoulinae. The smallest of the four lists for Vespertilionidae, these 30 species will finally finish off that mega-family. We again have a bunch of tiny little bats; this time one of them is bright orange (the appropriately-named painted bat), and that cluster in the image for Hardwicke's woolly bat are actually tucked up in a shoot of bamboo. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How weird is this, my wife sent me an Instagram video of K. picta and said "I bet this one will show up at some point on that Wikipedia list thing of yours" (sic) yesterday evening, literally an hour or so before you nominated this. I'll give it a review shortly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Generalissima comments

[edit]
  • "Least woolly bat" shouldn't be capitalized in the lede
  • File:KerivoulaFord.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • All other images appear correctly licensed.

@PresN: that's all from me! Great alt-text on the lede bat by the way, I dunno why but it made me chuckle Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endemic flora of the Chatham Islands

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still New Zealand, but a bit of a diversion from my usual fare! The Chatham Islands are an isolated little archipelago with quite the unique set of flora and fauna, many of which are endemic to the islands and found nowhere else on Earth. From what I can tell, this is the first list of endemic flora to run here — I had to ask PresN to create the table template used here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I've since added images for Macromitrium longirostre var. ramsayae, Sarcodia linearis, Gigartina grandifida , Lessonia tholiformis, Landsburgia myricifolia, and Pyrophyllon cameronii. Ceramium chathamense seems to be fairly rare, and the only images I could find for it are from the Te Papa Museum, which licenses them under 'All Rights Reserved'. Thus, unless 1) somebody is able to contact the museum and somehow convince them to release it under their usual CC BY 4.0, or 2) someone else physically goes to the small fishing village of Kaiangaroa where it lives, it's not feasible to have an image at this time. Between this and the list itself suitably using an overhead map of the Chatham Islands as a visual aid for the rest of the list, I think this easily meets criterion 5(b). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What I'm unconvinced of is that this meets 5(a) or 5(c). For 5(a), every subject in this article is by convention considered inherently notable by nature of being an attested taxon (being generous, we'll leave out subspecies and varieties). Thus, "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked" should at most include a few of the items (if any), but I count 30 (a majority) which are redlinked, including a lot of species, and that's quite a lot of work to overcome that issue. Regarding 5(c), the alt text for the top image is fine, but the alt text for all of the images in the tables is just the singular word "plants". This provides functionally no information to a reader who can't view the image. This is similarly a lot of work, but it's necessary. I haven't examined the other criteria yet. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, that's as minimum a proportion as reasonable is redlinked; since species are notable by default, there's really no way around that (until those get created, but then it wouldn't be a matter of this article anymore). I think PresN would be the person to ask here, as they've had to finagle with redlink-prone species lists before.
    As for the alt-text, oops, I forgot to change it from the default. I'll go fix that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5(a) is pretty subjective, and in practice seems to be treated as "don't link a ton of non-notable items because it's ugly". I've only seen it brought up in the last few years for lists of only redlinked items. In this case, I don't think it's aesthetically offensive or inappropriate to redlink the plants that haven't been stubbed yet, so I'm fine with this list from a 5(a) perspective. --PresN 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have strong opinions on 5(a) (I don't think the alternating red and blue is bad from an aesthetic perspective as long as it's not for the sake of possibly non-notable clutter), and I'm less familiar with FLC, so I think I'm going to take a look at other criteria and re-evaluate 5(c) once the nom is done with that aspect. Appreciated. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Regarding criterion 4, I'm wondering about the possibility of sorting this list. The first column for the name is already pre-sorted alphabetically (I don't think somehow being able to sort by the nickname or locale would be useful, and sorting by the description year wouldn't be worth putting the authority in its own column), but two things I find I would like to sort by are the family (to cluster them together to better understand where things fit together taxonomically) and the NZTCS assessment (thus, for instance, I could look at all of the ones that are 'Declining' as a cluster). Thus, I'm not sure that 4 is met if there's no way to sort the table. PresN, do you know if something like that is easily implemented? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheTechnician27: Not making a statement on if it should be sortable or not, but I added a "sortable=yes" option to the table template. --PresN 21:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, that was my only objection to criterion 4, and I think it now unambiguously passes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 – I think this is easily met (list just created, and there hasn't been any edit warring etc.).
  • 5(c) – Met except for alt text, which the nom has stated they intend to take care of (and must before the nom can succeed).
  • 5(b) – Met as well as we can (see above).
  • 5(a) – Seems ambiguous but fine subject to the above interpretation.
  • 4 – Met.
  • 3(c) – Seems met: (i) enough sources talk about the Chatham Islands' endemic flora for notability, (ii) this is close to but not a direct fork of flora of the Chatham Islands by nature of being only endemic flora, (iii) it has more than enough items, and (iv) a list this large can't reasonably be included in a related article.
  • 3(b) – I'll have to check for accurate sourcing and no close paraphrasing, but at a glance, all statements are at least sourced (the last sentence of the lead technically isn't, but the sourcing is in the table directly below it).
  • 3(a) – This one concerns me at present, not for its status right now but for its maintainability. The Department of Conservation says there are 47 endemics, we list 47 taxa, and a spot check of these shows that they're endemic. Thus, this seems correct right now, but I'm curious how this can easily be audited; is there an external list of all the endemic taxa? If not, then it seems like the process for auditing this article is 1) checking the number the Department of Conservation gives, 2) counting our list to make sure there's numerical parity, and then 3) checking each species' individual source to make sure it's endemic. That doesn't seem sustainable unless there's an outside list.
  • 2 – I think the species names in the lead should use common names (with scientific in parens) as much as possible, as five "bare" scientific names in quick succession will smack an average reader like a truck. It might also be worthwhile for the lead to briefly mention nonvascular plants since those have their own table, but only if it can be done organically. Lastly for now (this is just at a glance), the third sentence of the lead talks about divisions (I believe the DoC calls these "affinities") based on their relationships to mainland New Zealand, but this is never followed up on (I don't think it necessarily has to be, but putting it as the third sentence heavily emphasizes it).
  • 1 – Seems met: the lead is well-written from a technical perspective, and I see nothing wrong technically with the entries in the tables either. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Lecanora kohu is not a member of the flora (it is funga) and as such shouldn't be on a listing of endemic flora.
  • there are several unlinked authorities that have articles (de Lange, Heenan, Vitt, Agardh, W.A.Nelson) Esculenta (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Esculenta: I'm obviously inclined to trust your expertise here, but it seems very inconsistent whether sources include lichens under "flora" or not. On-wiki for example, Flora of Scotland (GA), Flora of Madagascar (FA), mention lichens. On Google Scholar, the phrase "Lichen flora" has nearly 20,000 hits.
    Great catch re: the authorities though. Got to those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Tlaxcala

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominated more list of Mexican State municipalities, almost done! It has a standardized format that now includes 52 (!!) lists of municipalities all around the world. Inspired by these real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standard, the project is taking shape. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations, including the recently passed Morelos but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews! Mattximus (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "16 new municipalities were created in 1995" => "In 1995, 16 new municipalities were created" would avoid starting a sentence with a number in digit form, which probably isn't technically invalid but always looks a bit wrong to me......
  • You are absolutely correct, not sure why I didn't notice that before nomination.

United States presidential elections in Oklahoma

[edit]
Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off a recent copy edit I feel I have addressed the issues that sunk the first nomination and hope to get it passed on the second go around. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • From my previous FLC comments: "Since it first joined the United States in 1907," : How many times has Oklahoma joined the United States?
  • Link all the names in the table, even on multiple occourances.

Looking much better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Is there an appropriate link for "electoral votes" for non-US people who don't necessarily know how the system over there works?
  • "The state's electoral votes were reduced to eight votes" => "The state's electoral votes were reduced to eight"
  • "Oklahoma initially vacillated between" - can you find a different verb than "vacillated"? It conveys a sense of every resident standing in front of the ballot box quivering and saying "I just can't decide who to vote for" :-)
  • "Oklahoma was last considered a swing state during the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton." - and when was that?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I addressed all your comments, though in regard to the last one I linked to the election and not the specific campaign. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1980

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's #20 in this series for your consideration. Fans of Family Guy may be interested to see Chuck Mangione listed here (apparently - I have never seen said show so don't really know what the gag is but somebody mentioned it to me........). Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Generalissima

[edit]

Images are correctly licensed and have provided alt-text (not a requirement but always nice to see. Prose is quality as usual, no complaints there; and the table is correctly formatted. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in Hyderabad

[edit]
Nominator(s): AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have tried to bring it up to standards based on the List of stupas in Nepal article, which is already an FL. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Note that your images need alt text added for accessibility. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To what extent is this comprehensive and is there selection criteria beyond having an article? It's fair that this is just the notable mosques since all of them here (but the new one) appear historic, but I'm wondering what we may be missing and not many dynamic/incomplete lists get featured.
  • I'm thinking this should be nominally expanded to cover all of Telangana even if there aren't others with articles: List of mosques in Jammu and Kashmir and List of mosques in Kerala both have a region-wide scope.
  • List of mosques in India and the former of those have a notes/remarks column. As it stands, this list is a very simple table, so without descriptions of the mosques or explanations of significance, I don't think this should be featured.
  • Heck, you're comparing this page to the Nepal list, but that one also has coordinates that this lacks.
  • And while that national list isn't very high-quality, it doesn't even seem so long that subarticles like this are needed. This definitely needs a lot more information to justify a split, otherwise it fails 3c. Reywas92Talk 17:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding coordinates and alt text. I'm in favor of expanding the scope to Telangana. The national list is missing a lot of mosques, so I don't know if splitting is justified or not. After how many entries would a list like that generally be split?AmateurHi$torian (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only mosques having a Wikipedia article have been included.--AmateurHi$torian (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Carterton District

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another New Zealand historic place list. Carterton is a sleepy little farming town, and many of these historic sites are certainly part and parcel from that background. Nevertheless, I hope you find this close up look at rural New Zealand life interesting. Thank you very much as always for your reviews! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Dylan620

[edit]

Gotta say I haven't seen the word plinth before. I wiki-googled it and it seems to be synonymous with pedestal, which is a more common word if I'm not mistaken - maybe replace it with that instead, or else wikilink plinth?

Other than that, the prose looks great. I also took a look at the images, and found no issues:

  • All images have adequate alt texts.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the list.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Where applicable (i.e. not the uploader's own work), the source URLs of all images verify where they came from.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thank you! I wikilinked plinth. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: No prob! Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle

[edit]
  • 'ties to the Ngāti Māhu hapū of the Ngāti Kahungunu.' should say tribe or iwi after Ngati Kahungunu.
    • Added. - G
  • urupa should have a lang tag.
    • Added. - G
  • The reference for Wakelin's flour mill is contemporary with the proposed demolition and does not support the fact the building was saved (but can be easily verified e.g. [1]) unless I missed something in the Heritage NZ report the report does not seem to have been written at a time when demolition was confirmed to not be going ahead 'The NZHPT was contacted, and negotiations with the owners to retain the building are underway.'
    • There's a bit under the Physical Description section under the Detailed List Entry at the bottom, but you're right that source is good to use here.
  • This one is personal preference but I think the Carter Home should say men's retirement home, as it was established as such and for most of it's lifetime was exclusive to men.
    • Good idea. - G
  • Sayer's Slab Whare should probably say remained and not resided, as he did not choose to live in the area because of his friendship but instead his friendship caused him to remain when his father left the area.
    • Good fix. - G
  • A description for the Mayfield Station would be nice although there does seem to be a dearth of digital sources. If you locate anything physical available in Auckland I might be able to take a look at it.
    • I dug quite a bit for that, and just could not find anything, not even things I could ask a friend in NZ to get. Usually when something on HNZ is that loosely covered, its due to some sort of privacy concern. - G


  • The Glendower Woolshed should say circa 19th century as the Heritage report states: 'it was most likely built in the nineteenth century'
    • Good fix. - G
  • A homestead originally built by John Milsome Jury in 1864. should say circa 1864 per the report. Should also say 1935 instead of 1934, presume that is just a typo.
    • Fixed! -G
  • Support one more minor thing: the heritage nz website you cite contains digitised reports which is what most information is obtained from. These are given a date and author which are good to include for attribution and letting the reader know how up to date the information is. I was going to add them myself but I came across partial names (J. Doe) and wasn't sure on citation styles which are important in a FA class article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco (and image review)

[edit]
  • Pā and Hapū are not italicized, while urupā is. Has the last not been incorporated into NZ English?
    • Neither pā or hapū are generally italicized in any of the sources I've seen - but to be honest, neither is urupā, although it is far rarer. I'm not totally sure what to do, but I defaulted to italicizing. - G
  • A World War I memorial - Does New Zealand prefer World War I or the First World War (as it would be in BrE)? Same for World War II and Second World War
    • Follows BrE generally - good catch, fixed. - G
  • Shares the site with Mayfield Station Stables (#7163) and Mayfield Station Woolshed (#1291). - Not a full sentence, so no full stop
    • Fixed. - G
  • Shares the site with Mayfield Station Shed (#7164) and Mayfield Station Woolshed (#1291). - Not a full sentence, so no full stop
    • Fixed. - G
  • Shares the site with Mayfield Station Shed (#7164) and Mayfield Station Stables (#7163). - Not a full sentence, so no full stop
    • Fixed. - G
  • The stables of a sheep run established sometime before the 1860s. - Not a full sentence (established ... modifies sheep run) so no full stop.
    • Fixed. - G
  • A couple more sentence fragments precede full sentences. Not sure how you want to deal with those. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crisco 1492: Responded - ty very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of district municipalities in British Columbia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cos (X + Z) & Hwy43 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 3rd FLC, and this one continues the series of British Columbia municipality lists. I hope you enjoy. Cos (X + Z) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criterion 3c. List of municipalities in British Columbia already includes a description of the subject in List of municipalities in British Columbia#District municipalities, and the entirety of the table duplicates what is in List of municipalities in British Columbia#List of municipalities. I fail to see why this shouldn't be redirected there. Reywas92Talk 06:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List of cities in New Brunswick, List of cities in British Columbia, and List of towns in British Columbia each passed FLC. On the first FLC, PresN originally questioned it as being a fork. That was addressed and was ultimately promoted by the same user. I know this won't change your mind. Hwy43 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I still question that, but at least cities had some unique information in the table and 'cities' is a specific term a subset of readers would be looking for... this is literally the same rows from list of municipalities (plus 100 Mile House, which is missing from the main list), with approximately the same explanatory text as is already there. That's 100% a duplication. If y'all are going to have separate lists for different types of municipalities in addition to the list of all municipalities, there has to be additional information in the sublists to justify it. --PresN 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out 100 Mile House wasn't missing. It is now fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those lists duplicate the main list and should be merged as well – no unique information. While in other cases sub-lists have a more detailed table and the main list is so long that a more precise and thorough page makes sense, here just a few former munis doesn't warrant a redundant page. Moreover the main article says there is no legal difference between the classifications – if the only difference is the population or density when incorporated, a single list can cover them all; why should we care that they're simply designated differently? Reywas92Talk 21:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this as a complete fork. Like the previous nominations, they are just repeated data from List of municipalities in British Columbia. Mattximus (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CosXZ: as evidenced by this, I was hinting that co-nominating this was premature. Upon addressing that, as evidenced by this re: the List of cities in New Brunswick nomination, I was going to raise more than just inclusion of former DMs before it being ready. B3251's nomination of List of cities in New Brunswick got promoted without my suggestions being implemented by for some reason. Its promotion was lucky, as was your two previous nominations for BC. Per above however, it appears these three precedents aren't going to be enough to be lucky this time. I suggest this FLC nomination either be withdrawn or some significant work be done in short order to expand the article so that it isn't perceived as an obvious fork of List of municipalities in British Columbia. You have since seen I already started this by expanding the "Former district municipalities" section. It will be further expanded today. I may be able to expand the table to include additional information as well. Look at List of municipal districts in Alberta and List of cities in Alberta as examples of how child list articles can expand significantly from the parent FL. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps List_of_municipalities_in_British_Columbia#Former_municipalities can be expanded to include redesignated municipalities. I don't see a few of them changing the official title without any legal substance to that to be enough unique information to need another page. If the name is the only difference, why does it matter enough to have the info duplicated? Reywas92Talk 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose this and believe it needs to be merged. You've added one column that adds ", District of" or ", The Corporation of the District of" to the name and another that adds the number of council members. The council size could certainly be added to the main municipalities list (not sure why it really matters, I'm not aware of any of other municipality list that has this). Specifying a corporate name is hardly meaningful. Again, what's the point if the only difference between municipal types is the name? You added a "Governance" section, the sources of which are generic to any municipality and should be included in the main article. Reywas92Talk 23:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Ideally, all incorporated (or equivalent) municipalities in a given state or province should be in a single list article to make comparisons easier for readers. Articles on the distinct types are fine, but they should not be lists with forked data. In my view, the cities and towns lists should have both been merged back into the main list and should not have been passed at FLC. SounderBruce 21:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with this logic and suggestion. I think it's just more useful to the reader, as the municipal categories are often quite arbitrary. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

[edit]
Nominator(s): --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my comeback nomination and, hopefully, my last comeback as well :) I did most of the work but also got invaluable help and insights from @Vipz:. As for why I did not nominate the article earlier, I could never find the membership year of Miroslav Ivanović, the last leader. But as far as I am concerned, that information is lost to history. I've tried to track it down, but I've been at a loss. As for the quality of the article itself and its worthiness for FL, I will note that it is obvious. It both covers a very important historical topic and covers the topic as well as it can do with the sources at hand. --TheUzbek (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]
  • Shouldn't events before it was renamed to LCY call the party by its period name?
    • Sure, but what specifically are you referring about? One has the "Institutional history of the highest-standing office of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia" table as well as the headers "Political secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" and "Organisational secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia" for the period up to 1937 and "|Leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia" for the period up to 1991. Or am I missing something you are seeing and not me? :)
  • Rather than focusing on the names used for the position overtime, I think it'd be better to focus on the evolution of the position's power (and esp. give context for Tito's rule and rise to greater power!)
    • Classical communist institutions are rather vague when it comes to specific powers. For example, the general secretary of the Soviet communist party was not mentioned in the party charter until 1966. The same could be said of earlier stipulations in the Yugoslav party. It is only with the 1966 reforms that the LCY tried to develop a set of institutions different from its Soviet counterparts based on rules. THat is why the article has more information on the post 1966 years than the years before.
  • Tito needs to be wikilinked at his first mention in the body.
    • Done
  • Since you wikilink Tito's death in the lede, you should also link it in the body.
    • Done
  • Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland and the Soviet Union do we need this big list of country names? We can just say "various other countries" or something.
    • Done, shortened it to "Soviet counterpart" as that was the most important one.
  • The LCY's article says it wasn't renamed to the Communist Party of Yugoslavia until the 2nd congress; that might not warrant a separate entry on the tables, but maybe a footnote could be helpful.
    • Is that not why we have the table "Institutional history of the highest-standing office of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia"?
  • Tito's position as leader factored into his command of the resistance during World War II, right? That should be given a good mention.
    • I will try to find information on that. Formally, the partisans were under the control of the Unitary National Liberation Front and the Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia, two institutions the party controlled. The KPJ Central Committee also appointed him commander-in-chief of the resistance, but I don't think they did it formally speaking because he was general secretary. I will try to ascertain it.That is, of course they nominated him because he was the sitting general secretary, but I am not sure that they did that because of the institution he held or because of the immense power he held in practice. Does this make sense? Even so, I will try to use the power of Google!
  • The article currently doesn't state the point where the party (or the leader for that matter) actually held power in Yugoslavia. A brief mention of the NKOJ and the abolition of the monarchy in 1945 would probably be warranted.
    • Good point, will work on it!
    • Come to think of it, this should at least mention the early political situation, that its leaders led it into the 1920 elections and all
      • Maybe? It's not necessary to know about the institution of the LCY leader, but at the same time, a sentence won't hurt either.
  • responsible -> accountability seems like overlinking.
    • Done
  • It's unclear to me whether the President of the League had more power or not than the General Secretary position
    • The general secretary had more informal powers by dominating and leading the secretariat, but the secretariat was abolished in 1966. The powers of the presidents were formalised into clear rules, which never happened to the general secretary. The post-1966 reforms also tried to strengthen the political powers of the Presidency by turning it to a political-executive organ (merging the powers of the Politburo and the Secretariat). In communist systems, the general secretary (most notably Stalin) successfully bypassed the politburo, the highest political organ, by dominating the secretariat, the highest executive organ. I will clarify.
  • On the "Institutional history of the highest-standing office" table, probably would be easier to read if you merged the two "1st Congress" cells.
    • Somewhat agree, but also partially agree. The organisational secretaryship lasted a year longer.
  • It might be good to add a sentence or two about what led to the foundation of the party with the SSDP and all.
    • Good point!
  • What was the seat before the Ušće Towers? Also, the towers don't seem to be cited or mentioned anywhere in the text.
    • I will try to find info on this!
  • This is a pretty minor gripe, but the text in "Institutional history" are in big blocks that are a bit hard to scan. Maybe break it up into slightly smaller paragraphs and add an image if there's any applicable ones?
    • Will do.

@TheUzbek: That's my bit. Sorry if any of this seems too nitpicky - feel free to reject or ask for clarification on anything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

@Generalissima: You made great comments, and I will try to address all you're comments by Friday or Saturday :) Thanks for taking the time to review the list! --TheUzbek (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Hidden Figures

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Figures follows Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson during their time at NASA. This list has the same style as my other FLs. The Across the Spider-Verse nomination has picked up two supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Support from Crisco

[edit]
Image review
File:"Hidden Figures" Film Celebration (NHQ201612100023).jpg - Correctly labelled as PD; ALT text is detailed and grammatical
Prose
Fixed the spelling, @Crisco 1492. I don't think {{inflation}} is necessary here. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great work! Chompy Ace 12:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fascination with Wikipedia's hurricane season timelines began when I was very young. Around the time I first started reading Wikipedia, I came across the timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season, and it stuck out to me due in part to a humorous narrative tidbit regarding Hurricane Isis. Though I now realize such writing isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia (indeed, this portion was rephrased soon after I found it), I loved how the timeline presented a chronology of the season. As for the season itself, it was remarkably low on both activity and impacts. No systems made landfall above tropical depression strength nor caused any known fatalities, though a few systems did cause minor effects.

I attempted to push this timeline through FLC in late 2010, but was unsuccessful. Over the past few months, I have rewritten it to the standard of the timeline FLs I've helped promote this year (see Timeline of the 1995 Pacific hurricane season and Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season for the two most recent examples), and I believe it is ready for a second crack at the bronze star. Personally, I would love if my 10th featured list could not only be one that I had previously tried to promote, but also one that holds some nostalgic value for me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

@Dylan620: Since I want to do my part in making FLCs pass quicker, I'll review each part here.

Images: All images are correctly licensed (PD) and fitting for the article. All good there.

Prose: Lede is solid. You wikilink atmospheric stability, but I think "air mass" is the more important one, since you can kind of infer what stability means there if you know what an air mass is (I didn't - not a meterology person, lol.) Formatting looks solidly in line with your previous FLs in this area. I don't see anything to remark on in the timeline itself. (Side note: amazed we don't have an article on the concept of a major hurricane beyond just the scale!)

Source: Everything is cited properly, and the sources are well-formatted. Things are mostly cited to the NHC and NOAA. I checked these sources and found nothing out of place:

  • Avila et al., 2005
  • "Huracán "Javier" Acecha a la Costa Pacífica de México"
  • Avila, Tropical Cyclone Report (though this one should have the date, 2004, added to the cite)
  • Beven, Tropical Cyclone Report (ditto on the date)
  • Pasch is missing the date too. Just double check all the cyclone reports and make sure they have dates! That's all that seems off to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the thorough review, Generalissima – everything should be resolved now! I wikilinked air mass and de-linked atmospheric stability to avoid falling afoul of WP:SEAOFBLUE. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - Support on both counts. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- EN-Jungwon 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short break I am back at FLC with another Inkigayo list. This is the sixth list of this series that I am nominating for FL. As always, the format is similar to the previous list that have been promoted to FL in this series. -- EN-Jungwon 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "A methodology used since February 3, 2019." - this is not a complete sentence. The simplest fix would be to append it to the previous sentence.
  • "Eleven songs have collected trophies for three weeks" => "Eleven songs collected trophies for three weeks"
  • "formed through the third season of Produce 101" - TV show title should be in italics
  • "gained their first number one Inkigayo" => "gained their first Inkigayo number one"
  • "Five soloist won" => "Five soloists won"
  • "The single went on to rank number one for three consecutive weeks and achieved a triple crown" - earlier you had capital letters on Triple Crown
  • "The former single accumulated 10,627 points on the March 8 broadcast " - you can't say "the former" when you listed three items
  • "rank number one for six weeks in a row - a first time record on the chart" - I think "rank number one for six weeks in a row, the first time this had occurred" reads more elegantly
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude, all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2024

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has certainly been a banner year for country music in the mainstream, with every song to top the Hot Country Songs chart also topping the overall Hot 100 and one of them on the verge of breaking the all-time record for the longest number one on the latter. Your feedback will as ever be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon. And yes, there are still three chart weeks left of the year, but you know you can count on me to do the relevant updates :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do image, prose, and sourcing just to make it easier for other reviewers!

  • Images all properly licensed and appropriate for the article.
  • Lede prose is solid; my only potential advice is that the last paragraph is a bit too lengthy to scan easily, but that's ultimately my personal taste.
  • Citation #11 is misformatted, resulting in it breaking. I checked the Rolling Stone coverage and a random smattering of the Billboard cites and everything seems above-board there.

@ChrisTheDude: Looks like there's just the one cite to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: - I fixed the ref and moved one sentence (cut down slightly) from the last paragraph to the one before -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great- Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have read the list twice and, indeed, it is too perfectly written for me to find something to quibble about. It's a direct support! Very interesting that Beyonce held the top spot on a country chart for so long, lol.--NØ 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Medxvo

[edit]

Older nominations

[edit]

List of Mingxing films

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the criteria. Mingxing was something of a big deal in Republican Shanghai, and this list provides readers with a list of their film productions as well as the necessary context to follow the evolution of its filmic output. I'm a bit rusty on tables, but I believe that it meets all accessibility guidelines.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wolverine

[edit]

Here are my comments:

  • The Mingxing Film Company, based in Shanghai, the Republic of China, released 174 narrative films between its establishment in 1922 and 1938, the year after its closure. I think this can better be phrased. Perhaps you should say something like "The Mingxing Film Company was an entertainment company that was based in Shanghai, the Republic of China (in what is now China) between 1922 and 1938. The company released 174 narrative films" or something like that. The last part of the sentence also makes no sense to me; did the company close its doors in 1937 or 1938?
    • Rephrased to "Mingxing was a film production company based in Shanghai, the Republic of China. It released 174 narrative films between its establishment in 1922 and 1938, the year after it closed in the face of the Second Sino-Japanese War." The company's year of disestablishment was 1937; however, its film productions did continue to be released into the following year.
    • As for the years: Per the source, "On 7 July 1937 the full-scale Sino-Japanese war broke out. A month later Shanghai was caught in war and fell into the hands of the Japanese imperial army after a fierce three-month battle, leaving the International Settlement and the French Concession unoccupied until December 1941. Located in the city’s Chinese sector, Mingxing’s new business premises were occupied by the Japanese and used as barracks following the fall of the district. The company virtually ceased operating from then on.166 Nominally it still existed, and traces of its nominal existence were left. After an initial period of war-time chaos, the spring of 1938 saw renewed popular passion for entertainment as the city gradually settled in the new environment. Four Mingxing films produced immediately prior to the war appeared on the screen". In short, Mingxing closed its doors, but the films themselves still had the opportunity to be distributed. The literature tends to use the 1937 date as the date of disestablishment. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mingxing's fortunes changed I'm not too sure about "fortunes"
  • and was later distributed throughout China Is this not the Republic of China?
  • following the success of Tianyi's Heroine Li Feifei (1925), wuxia (martial arts) films. Following their success, what happened?
  • This expanded to include leftist cinema following the arrival of screenwriters such as Qian Xingcun and Xia Yan, working under pseudonyms, in the 1930s. Not sure what "this" implies and an explanation or a link to "leftist cinema" would be helpful
  • Rephrased to "The company's productions expanded to include leftist cinema following the arrival of screenwriters such as Qian Xingcun and Xia Yan, working under pseudonyms, in the 1930s." I'll make a footnote, because apparently we don't have an article on leftist cinema. In brief, though, it was stories produced by communists with explicitly pro-proletarian themes. Given that the ruling Kuomintang was actively hunting communists... it took gumption. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's unnecessary space between the lead and the first section

And that's my lot. Great article, not too much for me to complain about, and if you do have the time I'd really appreciate a review of my nomination here. Thanks, Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 06:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks fine now; thanks for addressing my concerns. Also, please do check out the replies in my nom. Thanks, Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Six separate paragraphs for the lead seems a lot, could it be re-organised into fewer?
  • A lot of the last paragraph of the lead seems unnecessary. We don't normally have things in articles like "This list is divided into two tables, one for the Mingxing's silent films and one for its sound films." because the headings make that clear. I would create a L2 heading "List of films" (with the existing headings changed to L3) and have immediately under it just this: "Each table is sorted by release date by default. Titles are given in English-language translations as well as traditional and simplified Chinese. The names of directors are rendered using the Chinese naming scheme wherein the surname precedes the given name. The list only counts fictional films produced by the company and does not include films from other genres, such as actualities."
  • Titles starting with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30th Annual South African Music Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): dxneo (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th Annual South African Music Awards celebrated the best albums, songs, and music videos. Tyla was the biggest winner of the event. Hosted by Minnie Dlamini, it featured performers from the likes of Nasty C. Every winner was awarded a prize fund for that specific award. Special pings for peer reviewers, PSA and Medxvo. dxneo (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medxvo

[edit]

Most of my concerns were previously addressed during the PR, but I want to add some comments

  • Citation 1 can probably be placed just once at the end of the first paragraph of the background section since it supports all of the preceding information—WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, WP:REPCITE
  • Same issue for the last sentence of the third paragraph
  • Same issue for the first two sentences of the presenters section
  • Same issue for the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the reaction section
  • "highlighted in bold were necessary" - "where necessary"?
  • The RiSA abbreviation can be removed from the lead since it wasn't mentioned again there
  • Why are the performances section tables not sortable and why are the presenters not even listed in a table?
  • Most Streamed Song of the Year seems to be presented by CAPASSO
  • The Mthandeni SK and Nyovest controversy can have its own paragraph instead of being separated between the first two paragraph of the reaction section

Medxvo (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done. As for tabulating the presenters, I just didn't think it would look good since they presented awards and other presenters. dxneo (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the first, third, and fourth issues are still there. Would you like me to explain further or did you forget to fix them? Also please see Help:Sortable tables#Background colors in sortable headers to fix the sortable tables with a background color issue (just use "background-color" instead of "background"). I also just noticed that most of the FLs of the award shows have the winners and nominees section placed before the performances/presenters sections. Why is it not like this here? Medxvo (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
must've missed them opps. All good now.
Question: Why must the table be sortable when there's no rowspans?
  • I put the presenter and performances before the awards and nominations because during the show we saw the presenters and performances before the awards haha and I was referencing BET Awards 2024. Should I change it?
dxneo (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the sortable tables are only used when there are rowspans? It just helps the users to navigate the data, see Help:Sortable tables#Using sortable tables, and also 96th Academy Awards#Presenters and performers from a 2024 featured list for a similar example, which has the sortable table.
  • 2024 BET Awards isn't a FL, see Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards for FL references, I'm pretty sure all of them have the winners/nominees placed before the presenters/performances. I also think that the SAMAs performances were between the awards during the show not before them, no? The show even ended with the "Umlilo" and "Manzi Nte" performances :)
Medxvo (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I moved the section and sorted the table. SAMA 30 opened with performances from Ishmael, Thebe, Skwatta Kamp and so on, before they even introduced the presenters. I watched the whole show live. Anything you'd like to add? dxneo (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Best of luck! Medxvo (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I have made a source review and some spotchecks during the PR, but also some comments

  • "Entries for nomination consideration were open from 1 March 2024 to 14 April" - the source says 15 April
  • The source says that the cash prize for Album of the Year is 25 000 ZAR not 20 000 ZAR

Everything else seems fine to me. Medxvo (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Med, you the best. I like how you also noticed the inaccuracies on Prizes and entry dates. dxneo (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

[edit]
  • Unfortunately, the conjoined tables (everything in Winners and nominees) are pretty problematic from an accessibility perspective. Fundamentally the issue is that they are presented like a table of data, but it's actually just boxes stuck together. You can't use pseudo-header rows like that (MOS:COLHEAD), but even if you make every "row" its own table, the two columns aren't really related, it's just that you wanted to save space. Fortunately, there's a way to do exactly what you're trying to do (MOS:LTAB), and it's not hard to fix. See the code in e.g. 54th Academy Awards - add role="presentation" before the class="wikitable" to let screen-reader software know that it's not a data table, just a layout/presentation scheme, and then instead of columns and rows, you just use the {{Award category}} template, or else make each box a div yourself if that seems better to you. See the documentation at the Award category template for instructions on how to convert a psuedo-table to use that template.
  • I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 02:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never done this before. So far I have only used {{Award category}} on the Top 5 categories, can you please verify if I'm in the right direction before I move on. dxneo (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. dxneo (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! I added in screen-reader-only table captions, but that's minor and I hadn't mentioned it. --PresN 19:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

Hi! Appreciate the ping. Thanks for reminding me about this FLC; onwiki priorities went all over the place because of usual irl reasons... anyway. expect a response by the end of the week :) Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PSA, it's been almost 2 weeks now. Just a follow up. dxneo (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A handful of drive-by comments

[edit]
  • I don't think we need two different photos of Tyla right next to each other
Fixed. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, although the category is called (for example) "Female Artist of the Year", it is awarded not to the artist generically, but to a specific recording by the artist////?
Honestly, this has always been something I never quite understood. I mean, it's Female Artist of the Year, I think it's awarded to both. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference (apart from one letter ) between "Best Pop Album" and "Beste Pop Album"?
Haha, Best is English and Beste is Afrikaans. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you said "how come" haha. There are just some things that do not have answers to, but there's Best Contemporary Faith Music Album, Best Adult Contemporary Album (English), and Best African Adult Contemporary Album (Presented by Ikwekwezi FM). Very few are in Afrikaans I guess. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]
  • "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four awards." => "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four." (avoid repeating "award")
  • "Kabza de Small received three awards alongside Mthunzi." => "Kabza de Small and Mthunzi received three awards."
  • "and R4,600.00 ($311.23) for non-members including value-added tax per entry for all categories" => "and for non-members it was R4,600.00 ($311.23) including value-added tax per entry for all categories"
  • "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades; trailing behind was Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" => "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades, ahead of Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" ("trailing behind" sounds a bit judgmental)
  • "Below is the list of winners highlighted in bold where necessary." => "In the list below, winners are highlighted in bold where necessary."
  • In the Main show performances tables, some songs are centred and others are not
  • "were in attendance of the main event" => "were in attendance at the main event"
  • "Tyla's "Water" lost Record of the Year award" => "Tyla's "Water" lost the Record of the Year award"
  • First two tiny paragraphs under "Reaction" should be merged
  • "he should've reached out privately" => "he should have reached out privately" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chris, one thing I did not understand is that "some songs are centred and others are not." So, I don't really know what to fix since I don't see anything wrong, because I did not use {{center}}. Any suggestion on how I can fix this? dxneo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On my screen at least, the whole column is centred with the exception of some rows with use {{ubl}} (don't know what that is), which seems to have the effect of over-riding the default alignment of the column and making them left-aligned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On my screen they were and they still are all centered. I replaced {{ubl}} with <br/>. How does it look now? dxneo (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Tasmania by population

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second list I have nominated in this series, after List of places in the Northern Territory by population, which was recently promoted. There is one major change compared to that list: I have added a list of Significant urban areas as well, which is for urban areas with a population greater than 10,000, which only two places in the Northern Territory met. I have also added some more images to the side, thanks to the nice aerial shots available on Commons. I look forward to all comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review

Support - Prosewise I don't see any cause for concern. Pleasantly formatted and solid throughout. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP NFL Assistant Coach of the Year Award

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This the longest I've gone without a nom and I've been itching to make another, so here it is! This is about an award that's given by the Associated Press annually, since 2014, to the top assistant coach in the NFL. This list is based on the similarly promoted lists of AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award, and AP NFL Most Valuable Player Award. As always, I will do my best to respond to any and all criticism in a timely manner and to address all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SounderBruce

[edit]
  • "who regularly follow the NFL" feels a bit strange; should it be "regularly report on the NFL"?
  • Third sentence has a repeated use of "presented"; perhaps it should be reordered as well to put the first use after mentioning where the award is presented.
  • Citation for the last statement in the first paragraph?
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph should mention the year of the award, recipient's position and/or his team.
  • Can the uses of "AP News" in the citations be replaced with "Associated Press"?
  • Citation 3 should use {{cite press release}} and note the AP as the publisher.

Quite the short list, so I don't have much to comment on. SounderBruce 03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's my shortest list thus far, but I needed something to shake off the rust lol.
  • "who regularly follow the NFL" feels a bit strange; should it be "regularly report on the NFL"? – Yes, definitely better wording, done.
  • Third sentence has a repeated use of "presented"; perhaps it should be reordered as well to put the first use after mentioning where the award is presented. – I've changed the wording to The ACOY is presented alongside seven other AP awards at the NFL Honors and was first awarded following the 2014 NFL season at the 4th Annual NFL Honors. Let me know if you think think this could be improved upon further.
  • Citation for the last statement in the first paragraph? – While I don't have a citation that explicitly says that, I felt it worth mentioning and fairly obvious based on the table itself.
  • Last sentence of the second paragraph should mention the year of the award, recipient's position and/or his team. – changed to Jim Schwartz, the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns, is the most recent winner of the award.
  • Can the uses of "AP News" in the citations be replaced with "Associated Press"? – You know, I'm actually glad you mentioned that. I felt iffy about listing AP News, and I do feel "Associated Press" would be better, so I'm glad to see this suggestion. I've made the change.
  • Citation 3 should use {{cite press release}} and note the AP as the publisher. – Done.
Thank you so much for the review @SounderBruce, I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few little tweaks, but it all looks good. Support. SounderBruce 23:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I support all the above, plus....

  • Is there an appropriate link for "assistant coach"? or at the very least for "coach"?
  • Also links for "offensive or defensive coordinators"? I for one don't know what these are
  • "following the seasons which they won the award for" => "following the seasons for which they won the award" would read more elegantly I think
  • "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were also hired as head coaches" => "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were subsequently hired as head coaches" (current wording makes it sound like they were hired as head coaches while also continuing to work as assistant coaches, which I presume isn't what is meant)
  • For accessibility reasons I don't believe you can use just bold to highlight something (in this case who won the SuperBowl). Use colour/symbol
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an appropriate link for "assistant coach"? or at the very least for "coach"? – Wikilinked to coach (sport) in the opening sentence.
  • Also links for "offensive or defensive coordinators"? I for one don't know what these are – Done.
  • "following the seasons which they won the award for" -> "following the seasons for which they won the award" would read more elegantly I think – Ah, yes, definitely!
  • "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were also hired as head coaches" -> "remained assistant coaches for at least another season after winning the award but were subsequently hired as head coaches" (current wording makes it sound like they were hired as head coaches while also continuing to work as assistant coaches, which I presume isn't what is meant) – Ah yeah, definitely not what I meant, your wording is definitely an improvement and has been implemented.
  • For accessibility reasons I don't believe you can use just bold to highlight something (in this case who won the SuperBowl). Use colour/symbol – I hadn't considered whether bold would be called out or not, but I certainly want to make sure it's accessible, so I've swapped it to a fill and an asterisks.
Thank you very much for the review and helpful feedback @ChrisTheDude! I hope I've addressed everything :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Source review)

[edit]
  • Should you mention that PFWA also gives out an Assistant Coach of the Year Award?
  • the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns --> the defensive coordinator for the 2023 Cleveland Browns
  • Source review: Passed
    • Do you typically include the |location= field? I only see it in a few sources. Should it be universally included or not included?
    • All references are consistently formatted.
    • References are reliable for what is being cited.
    • Spot checks all passed.

Nice work Hey man im josh! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should you mention that PFWA also gives out an Assistant Coach of the Year Award? – I'm not sure I can comfortably shoehorn it in anywhere. I'd put it in the see also section if there was a list of them somewhere on wiki, but I can't actually find their assistant coach award listed anywhere.
  • the defensive coordinator of the 2023 Cleveland Browns --> the defensive coordinator for the 2023 Cleveland Browns – Fixed.
  • Do you typically include the – Honestly I go back and forth on the whether they should be included or not in a lot of cases. I did so because of the fact they were included in the sources I was using. Based on the information at Template:Citation, it seems like I should when it's presented as the prefix/dateline for the article text in a number of places. Truthfully I'm trying to improve my reference work, and if it's not appropriate, I would appreciate the feedback on that.
Thanks so much for the review Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of music released by Moldovan artists that has charted in major music markets

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Moldovan music released. It is the second list of its kind here on Wikipedia after the FL List of music released by Romanian artists that has charted in major music markets. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "was group O-Zone." => "was the group O-Zone."
  • "was the first song performed in native Romanian" => "was the first song performed in Romanian"
  • "and reaching number 72 in Japan and number 16 on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart." - not to be biased towards my native UK, but I would think that getting to number 3 in the UK is a far more noteworthy achievement than either of these
I agree. I changed the sentence to include the UK peak instead of the other charts.
  • "reaching numbers eight, 19 and 16, respectively." => "reaching numbers 8, 19 and 16, respectively."
Numbers below 10 should be written out per MOS:NUMERAL.
....which also says "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: You are right! I did not see that before. Fixed it now. Anything else? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi there and thank you very much for your review. I have implemented your feedback and left some comments. Let me know if you support this nomination. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB (Comments + Source Review)

[edit]

For transparency, I've taken use of Google Translate for most foreign-language sources where needed.

  • The image of Dan Balan should have an alt text. For its caption, I would remove the second use of "Moldovan" before naming his group, since (at least I would) assume the band is from the same country as the member.
  • notably reaching number 44 on the UK singles chart - notably according to whom? I think the word could just be cut
  • was a top ten hit and was awarded certifications in the majority of music markets - second 'was' could be removed. For 'majority of music markets', do you mean major music markets?
  • There are instances of oxford commas missing. If the article is not written in American English, add {{Use British English|date=December 2024}} (or a suitable alternative) to the top of the article to discourage users from changing this.
  • Source [11] (CNN) renders an error for me, but I don't have any issue with the archive. Change the url-status to dead, unless this is a regional issue.
  • I believe "Love Me… Love Me…" should be reformatted to "Love Me... Love Me..."
  • I can't find the French chart position for "Hey Mamma"
  • In regards to [18] (RIAJ), the drop-down menu only goes back to 2006 for me.
  • For me, the UK Charts says that "Hey Mamma" also charted at 51 on the main chart. It also says "Trenulețul" reached 49 and that "Soarele și luna" reached 66.
  • [24] (Billboard) gives me a digital songs chart history instead of Bubbling Under 100.
  • Non-archive link for [29] (RIAA) returns a 404 page. Change the url-status to dead, unless it is a regional issue
  • There are no instructions for how to find the relevant information in [31] (RIAJ)
  • Checked: [3], [4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [35], [14], [15], [32], [16], [17], [19], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [27], [28], [30], [33], [34],

List of murinines

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bats list #7 and mammal list #48: Murininae. The list is small and the bats are smaller: this third list of four in Vespertilionidae has only 35 species to keep track of, all of which are pretty similar (though the guy in the lede image has some neat silver coloring). As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I got nothing :-) I notice that the lead image is a duplicate of one of the ones in the table - it might be nice to use an image for the lead that isn't also in the table but this isn't a deal-breaker, not least because I expect that the reason is that there aren't any other tube-nosed bat images available..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Comments
  • ALT text is not used consistently.
  • All bat images have alt text; the maps have a stock alt text because they have visible captions instead for the same purpose. Is anything else missing alt text?
  • Dobson images could be marked PD-100 to better serve readers in countries with longer terms of copyright.
  • Done
  • What are the source files for the maps? Seems to only be a problem with the ones by A proietti.
  • No idea; they appear to have been created based on maps in the books named (Menkhorst & Knight, 2001, for example, is A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, while Flannery 1995 is either Mammals of the South-west Pacific & Moluccan Islands or Mammals of New Guinea (he split the work into two volumes, published in the same year))
  • Unclear, which is why I didn't mention it in the caption
@Chris Woodrich Hi! Since these images were made for the related pages on it.wikipedia.org, the color corresponding to the subspecies can be found there. Some, however, are transcribed in the remarks. Available for any comparison. Greetings! A proietti (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've inserted this info in the image remarks! A proietti (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A proietti: Thanks! Do you remember where you got the base blank map image from? --PresN 16:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. Certainly from Commons, .svg format, different map projections which I then modified in .png format. They are more than 10 years old, I had slightly dated software at that time A proietti (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any verification, but the image isn't that useful, so removed.
  • Prose:
  • "Like all bats, murinines are capable of true and sustained flight, and have wing lengths ranging from 2 cm (1 in) to 6 cm (2 in)." -- Wingspan doesn't apply to all bats; might be better with the previous sentence.
  • Split into two sentences
  • Almost no murinines have population estimates, though two species—the Da Lat tube-nosed bat and Ryukyu tube-nosed bat—are categorized as endangered species, and two species—the Bala tube-nosed bat and gloomy tube-nosed bat—are categorized as critically endangered. - Any way of avoiding the repetition of "species"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed first species, it should be clear from the aside that we mean two species, not two individual bats.
@Crisco 1492: Addressed. --PresN 23:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, I just wanted to follow up on this to see whether it has your support or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and prose review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Prose is solid, I don't have any comments to make there.
  • Tables are correctly formatted (they're a template, after all!)
  • Almost everything is cited to the IUCN Red List, a good quality source for this.
    • I checked a random smattering of the IUCN links, and everything checks out.
    • Ditto on Nowak 1994.

Support on both fronts. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Kazakhstan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tone 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan has 6 WHS and 13 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. It seems that now the standard minimum length is 8 items in total, and I am still keeping personal limit to at least 3 sites on the main list. Tone 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "TThree sites are transnational" - typo
  • "Even if the mausoleum remains partially unfinished," => "Although the mausoleum remains partially unfinished,"
  • "Silk Road is an ancient network of trade routes" => "The Silk Road is an ancient network of trade routes"
  • "started forming in the 2nd century BCE" - earlier you just used "BC"
  • "represents different stages of history of Turkic peoples" => "represents different stages of the history of the Turkic peoples"
  • "as and later the centre of the Kazakh khans ." - don't think that "as" should be there, also there's a random space before the full stop
  • "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints are popular pilgrimage sites" - this doesn't make sense. I think what you mean is "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and are popular pilgrimage sites"
  • "The archaeological excavations of the tombs, kurgans, uncovered" => "The archaeological excavations of the tombs, called kurgans, uncovered"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FIxed all, thanks :) Tone 12:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've changed one item but not in the way I was expecting. Can I just check if "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and popular pilgrimage sites" is correct? Currently this wording indicates that some of the mosques are named after saints and some of the mosques are named after pilgrimage sites. I don't think this is what you mean, but maybe I am wrong....? I think what you mean is "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and are popular pilgrimage sites" (i.e. all the mosques are named after saints and the mosques are pilgrimage sites) - can you confirm.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, you are correct, added "are". Typo on my side. Tone 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress

[edit]
Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination of this list. Please be informed that the list is extensive, and I have made every effort to address the issues raised in the previous nomination, including improvements in table formatting, an explanation of how state boundaries have changed and been renamed, and the inclusion of reliable references. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@25 Cents FC: I think the list is lovely. I only have a few proposals.
  1. "The party during the post-independence era has governed most of the states and union territories of India. It has the status of a "national party" in India." -----> "In the post-independence era, the party has governed most of India's states and union territories, and by extension, has the status of a "national party" in India."
  2. "As of 20 November 2024, INC is in power in the three states of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Telangana." ------> "As of 20 November 2024, INC is in power in three states: Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Telangana."
  3. "In Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand it shares power with alliance partners Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha respectively" ----> "In Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand, it shares power with alliance partners Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, respectively" ... Aren't you missing two commas?
  4. "A chief minister is the head of government of each of the twenty-eight states and of two union territories (Delhi and Puducherry). According to the Constitution of India, at the state level, the governor is de jure head, but de facto executive authority rests with the chief minister." ---> "According to the Constitution of India, at the state level, the governor is de jure head, but de facto executive authority rests with the chief minister. The chief minister is, therefore, considered the head of government in his jurisdiction."
  5. "While not a constitutional office, it seldom carries any specific powers" (that seems very logical, what about) ---> "Because the deputy Chief Minister is not a constitutional office, the amount of powers the officeholder has is in large part influenced by the Chief Minister."
  6. "The chief minister's term is usually for a maximum of five years with the confidence of the assembly" ----> "The chief minister's term, if he has the assembly's confidence, is normally limited to five years."
  7. Could you write somewhere that the list is organised "according to states and union territories"? For a person who knows nothing about Indian politics, I was first very unaware of what "Andhra Pradesh" was. It may sound stupid, but it helps the reader.

List of Buffalo Sabres seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With my profound interest and supporting of the Buffalo Sabres, I'd though I would do my duty and make this a featured list. Unfortunately for my beloved Sabres, they have gone on a 13-year postseason drought, which leads to some interesting statistics and backlash. This is my first rodeo, but hopefully won't be my last. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

[edit]

This review is based off this version of the page.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Your citation wikilinking style is unclear to me. Are you intending to only link the first time a source is mentioned?
Not sure but it doesn't matter. Should be consistent now.
  • Ref 1 – Link doesn't work, might need to be tweaked
Done, changed url status to dead.
Done.
  • Refs 2 and 3 – Inconsistent formatting. Better to just use Hockey Reference as the website on both with no publisher listed
Done.
  • Ref 6 – The reference should be marked as subscription access, you can do with the |access=subscription parameter
Done.
  • Ref 8 – Is this the newest version of the record book that's available? NFL teams often have a pretty detailed media guide they release, and I can't find one for the Sabres, but I did find this for the Penguins as an example of what I'd personally look for if I was doing an NHL team seasons list.
The most recent version was published in 2018 and then discontinued. Replaced.
  • Ref 9 – Link to HockeyDB as a website instead of "The Internet Hockey Database" as the publisher
Done.
  • Refs 11, 13, and 20 – Need to be tagged as subscription access
Done.
Done.
  • Refs 14 and 17 – Is there a reason ESPN is listed as the publisher instead of website?
Not that I am aware of, changed to website.
Done.
  • Ref 16 – Link redirects when clicked, mark as dead or update link
Done.
  • Ref 16 – The archived link, which does work, shows an author named Ira Podell, add this, and Associated Press as the agency
Done.
  • Ref 17 – At the bottom of this source it says info from the AP was used in this report, not sure what to make of that personally, but felt I'd call it out so that we can ponder whether we should list AP as the agency or just let it be
It'd be nice if they specified what information was used but it seems like ESPN was the main writer of the story so I would leave it personally.
  • Ref 18 – Link to CNBC
Done.
  • Ref 19 – Add Tom Gulitti as the author
Done.
  • Ref 21 – Should be a note, not a reference
Done.
  • I'm not seeing the info on who the teams lost to in the playoffs
As in a reference showing the Sabres' playoff history?

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, most concerns have been addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 17:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple tweaks to refs, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "won zero Stanley Cup titles" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would be tempted to say "and reached the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times"
Done.
  • "losing the finals in 6 games" => "losing the finals in six games"
Done.
  • "Over the next 10 seasons, the Sabres made a postseason appearance" - they made just one postseason appearance in those 10 seasons? Or do you mean they made one every season? If so, I would say "Over the next 10 seasons, the Sabres made a postseason appearance every year"
Done.
  • "lost the series to the New York Islanders in 5 games" => "lost the series to the New York Islanders in five games"
Done.
  • "For the first time since the 1973–74 season, the Sabres failed to qualify for the playoffs, missing the point cutoff by 4 points." - when was this?
Added season which required a rewording of the sentence.
  • "beginning an eight-year postseason appearance streak. Despite the postseason appearance streak" - somewhat repetitive. I would start the second sentence with simply "During this period"
Done.
  • "starting their most successful postseason appearance streak, lasting for five years. Compared to the previous eight-year postseason appearance streak" - again, this is quite repetitive. Suggest shortening the start of the second sentence to simply "Compared to previous streak"
Done.
  • "in every season minus the 1999–2000 season" => "in every season with the exception of the 1999–2000 season"
Done.
  • "The 1999 playoff run would be the last appearance in the Stanley Cup finals for the Sabres as of the 2023–24 season" => "The 1999 playoff run is the most recent appearance in the Stanley Cup finals for the Sabres as of the 2023–24 season"
Done.
  • "The Sabres would face the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals," => "The Sabres faced the Dallas Stars in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals,"
Done.
  • "a series that they would lose in six, albeit in dubious fashion" => "a series that they lost in six, albeit in dubious fashion"
Done.
  • "scored with his skate in the crease" - no idea what this means although it sounds painful. Is there an appropriate wikilink for "skate in the crease" or simply "crease", whichever is appropriate.....?
Linked crease.
  • "After returning from the 2004–05 lockout, the Sabres had made it back to the postseason" => "After returning from the 2004–05 lockout, the Sabres made it back to the postseason"
Done.
  • "where they would lose to the Senators in five" => "where they lost to the Senators in five"
Done.
  • "The Sabres would win the Northeast division in the 2009–10 season and move onto the playoffs" => "The Sabres won the Northeast division in the 2009–10 season and moved onto the playoffs" (see WP:WOULDCHUCK for why it's very rarely necessary to say that something in the past "would" happen)
Done.
  • "The same fate would happen next year" => "The same fate would happen the following year" ("next year" is 2025)
Done.
  • "where they would make the playoffs and get eliminated in the first round" => "when they made the playoffs and got eliminated in the first round"
Done.
  • "this time by the Philadelphia Flyers in 7" => "this time by the Philadelphia Flyers in seven" (to be consistent with all other similar usages)
Done.
  • That's what I got on the prose. Table looks all good although I am not sure the "playoff results" column needs to be sortable because it sorts only on the first thing listed, so (for example) their two Stanley Cup final appearances sort nowhere near each other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude; most concerns should be addressed, including the playoff results sort. Kline • talk • contribs 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • As of the end of the 2023–24 season, the Sabres have won 1,918 regular season games, accumulated six division championships and one conference championship, tied for the league lead in points once for the Presidents' Trophy, appeared in the playoffs 29 times, and reached the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times. this is a bit of a run-on sentence. Maybe break it up like this: As of the end of the 2023–24 season, the Sabres have won 1,918 regular season games, tying for the league lead in points once for the Presidents' Trophy. They have appeared in the playoffs 29 times, accumulating six division championships and one conference championship, while reaching the Stanley Cup finals twice, losing both times.
Done.
  • The Sabres started play in 1970, and made their first Stanley Cup appearance in 1975, losing the finals in six games against the Philadelphia Flyers. you mention already that they were founded in 1970. Maybe just start is off that they made their first Stanley Cup final in 1975.
I changed quite a bit for this one. I added the date (supported by reference) to when they were granted their franchise, and changed the wording to the 1970–71 season where you mentioned the sentence. Let me know if I should make some additional changes.
  • finishing in 11th of the Eastern Conference with 73 points I think you need "place" after "11th" or some similar word
Changed to finishing 11th in the Eastern Conference.
  • dubious change to "controversial" or something clearer and less editorializing.
Done, removed controversial from the next sentence to remove repetitiveness.
  • against Carolina Hurricanes which was lost in seven., need a comma after "Hurricanes" and "games" after "seven"
Done.
  • President's Trophy is linked twice in the lead, you can lose the second link
Done.
  • With their regular season success, Recommend deleting this phrase, as regular season success doesn't always correlate or transition over to the postseason.
Done.
  • the Bruins in six. again, add "games"
Done.
  • Philadelphia Flyers in seven. same as above
Done.

That's all I got Kline, nice work! If you are interested and available, I have an active FLC that could use a review. Please ping me in your response. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007; most concerns should be addressed, cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After significantly reworking List of accolades received by Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse to ensure it was still FL-quality, I thought it appropriate to get the sequel's list promoted. Follows the usual style. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Green Bay Packers all-time roster

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this again. A few important things to note: (1) this list follows the format for all other NFL All-Time Rosters (see {{List of NFL players}} for the others). (2) These lists are quite large (this one is over 1,800 entries) and grows larger every season. To keep things manageable from an article size perspective and ease for updating, ancillary details like position are not included. These however can be found in other lists where those ancillary details are more important (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks provides a person's college). (3) For somewhat of a precedent, Outline of lichens provides a recent FLC example of a list that is mostly just the mere listing of the list entries. I believe that list and this one meet the intent of WP:FLCR 3(a). I welcome any feedback and as always will work to address comments quickly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, you had made some comments in the first review. If you have the chance and the interest, would you be willing to come back and give it a look again? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:10, 3 December 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 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • You have Pro-Football-Reference.com linked in the external links section, which doesn't follow your typical linking habits.
  • Consider, in the notes section, including the player's full name instead of just surname (and linking) so the notes section is a bit clearer. I'd be fine with not linking, but I do think full names are beneficial there for anybody looking just at the notes themselves.

Otherwise links good, even if not our typical list format. I don't really have a reason to not support it other than it being a Packers list. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, fixed both. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Over 1,800 people have played" - "people", while technically accurate, sounds a bit odd, like it has been chosen in order to cover men, women, and children. Maybe "Over 1,800 players have taken part"
  • "or who only were signed" => "or who were only signed"
  • Is there a link for "practice squad"?
  • IN the key you have "inducted in" for one entry but "inducted into" for the other. I would use the latter for both, personally
  • That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ChrisTheDude!!! All done. Appreciate the review :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The Packers have competed in the National Football League (NFL) since 1921, two years after their original founding"; I hope I'm not being nitpicky here but what exactly did they do during this two-year gap? Would it be appropriate for inclusion?
    • They played against amateur teams across Wisconsin. This is the standard sentence I have used across all Packers' lists. I would say it's probably too much detail for this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lambeau Field in central Wisconsin."; perhaps link Wisconsin since it wasn't linked when Green Bay was mentioned.
  • "growing from 18 roster spots in 1921 to the lower 50s by the 2020s."; Is there a definitive number for the 2020s or does it keep changing?

Ask and you shall receive! I hope I did alright since this happens to be my first FLC review, and this is all I got. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 21:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Kline! Addressed or responded to all your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, all concerns have been addressed, support. Kline • talk • contribs 22:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chivas USA managers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list for FL, continuing my streak of Major League Soccer-related lists. This one covers managers for the defunct Chivas USA, which had an unbelievable nine managers across ten seasons. This list follows the same format as List of New England Revolution seasons, with a written summary of the managerial history as well as the list of managers with results. Brindille1 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until it folded after the 2014 season" - this wording could be interpreted as meaning that Major League Soccer folded in 2014. Suggest rewording to "competed in Major League Soccer (MLS) from 2005 until 2014, after which the team folded"
  • "Chivas USA introduced their introductory" - can you change one of these words so the language is less repetitive?
  • "at a press-conference on September 23, 2004" - there is no hyphen in "press conference"
  • "and with the team at a 1-8-1 record, " => "and, with the team at a 1-8-1 record, "
  • can you clarify within the article what a "1-8-1 record" is? To me, as a European, it means one win, eight draws, and one defeat, but it appears that in America it means one win, one draw and eight defeats
  • "he became team's sporting director" => "he became the team's sporting director"
  • There's an issue with the ref template after "losing in the first round each time"
  • "Before hiring their next coach, both Shawn Hunter (the chief executive) and Stephen Hamilton (the vice president of soccer operations) departed the club" - Hunter and Hamilton left the club but then hired its next coach? That doesn't make sense. I think the initial clause needs changing, as presumably the subject of that clause is the club.....
  • "with the team in last in the Western Conference" => "with the team in last place in the Western Conference"
  • "a lawsuit against the club alleging discrimination for not being Latino." => "a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were discriminated against for not being Latino."
  • "Sanchez Sola not always followed" - as this is apparently a direct quote, can I just confirm that the statement contained this grammatical error?
  • Wilmer Cabrera image caption needs a full stop.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. I've fixed each of those points. Brindille1 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Apologies if I duplicate anything from ChrisTheDude above.

  • There needs to be a comma after Carson, California
  • Disastrous in the heading seems a little too much editorializing. Just "Debut season"
  • All the records need to have en dashes (i.e. 1-8-1 should be 1–8–1) I would recommend {{Win-loss record}} actually
  • end of the season, he announced comma isn't needed
  • within a month, but was hired as the manager comma isn't needed
  • national team, and stepped down comma isn't needed
  • one season, and was fired comma isn't needed
  • filed a lawsuit against the club alleging that they were for not being Latino. they were what? "Fired"?
  • as well as by Chivas USA." quote mark goes before the period
  • to a 3-6-12 record, and on comma isn't needed
  • its last match, and it ceased operations the next day --> its last match, ceasing operations the next day
  • Match results contain all league games as well as MLS playoff matches. "as well as" should just be "and"
  • The use of {{Abbr}} for "Win%" isn't correct. I think you are shooitng for a footnote here, which can be done using {{sfn}} and {{Notelist}}

That's all I got Brindille1. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, @Gonzo fan2007. I've addressed each of the items, except for "quote mark goes before the period"- the current text is correct based on my reading of MOS:QUOTEPUNCT Brindille1 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of emperors of the Ming dynasty

[edit]
Nominator(s): Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about list of emperors of the Ming dynasty. I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is an important part of the series of articles on the topic of the Ming dynasty that I am currently improving. Min968 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should be a WP:Featured list candidate rather than a WP:Featured article candidate? TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have fixed it. Min968 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike

[edit]

Staking out a spot here, if I haven't responded within a week please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the late 1620s, a peasant uprising erupted in northern China – link to Late Ming peasant rebellions.
  • A total of sixteen emperors ruled over China proper for 276 years. During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability. Specify that this refers to the Ming dynasty. (Philosophical note: I believe paragraphs and most sentences in the lead should be able to stand on their own, especially since search engine previews tend to take them out of context, so I think making them technically correct is important.)
  • continued to rule over the south of the country – I would prefer "continued to rule over southern China". The definition of country is very vague. It's okay that you use the phrase again later in the paragraph.
  • To defeat the rebels, the government troops in the north invited the Manchu-led Eight Banner armies of the Qing dynasty to come to the Central Plains. The Manchus then occupied northern China in the same year. "the government troops in the north" – clarify. I think this is a summary of the Battle of Shanhai Pass that could be misleading. Wu Sangui, for better or worse, is seen as a rogue general. The current wording suggests that the Ming government somehow condoned his decision. The use of "invited" is also probably inaccurate, phrasing using "coerced" is probably better. "Eight Banner armies" could be shortened to "Eight Banners", though this is not obligatory. Northern China should be linked. I prefer "that same year" over "in the same year".
  • a similar complex in Nanjing should link to Ming Palace.
  • according to the Hongwu Emperor's decision is vague and begs the question "which decision?" I think there's a name for it, it's been a while since I've read about this period but he did set down some kind of constitution/code of conduct for future emperors. Maybe it's the Great Ming Code I'm thinking of.
  • the successor to the throne was always the eldest son of the emperor and empress, or his heir if he had none, followed by younger sons of the empress. I'm not sure what you mean by "his heir if he had none". Could you clarify this, please? Does it mean that if the eldest son had a son and died, that grandson would be the successor? Also, something in this section should link to or be replaced with Taizi – probably the first use of "successor" or "heir".
@Toadspike I have removed some content from the article. In the near future, it may be included in another more suitable article or a new article specifically about the Ming emperors. Min968 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General point: The lead seems pretty long to me. Some of the content (e.g. "Court and family", "Burial traditions") seems much more suited for the main Emperor of China article or a new Ming emperors article. I don't mind much for now, but in the long run that would be the best move.

More comments as I re-read:

  • I don't think the Hongguang Emperor should be listed under "first emperor" in the infobox. (Will explain my reasons if necessary.)
    • I'm not sure if the start of the southern Ming should be in the infobox either, but I'm not super opposed to it. I agree that the last southern Ming emperor and end date of the southern Ming should be included.
  • In the lead, I would put the years for the Wanli Emperor immediately after the words "Wanli Emperor", rather than at the end of the sentence.
  • "China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability" might be generally true, but it's not like there was always economic growth and political stability. Could you reword this a little? Perhaps add a qualifying term like "generally" or "broadly". The dynastic collapse and Tumu Crisis are obvious exceptions to "political stability", and one could also argue that the Wanli reign was one long political crisis.
  • "The emperor of the Ming dynasty, as well as the emperors during the imperial era of China (221 BC – 1912), was known as the "Son of Heaven"" This sentence has a grammar issue (I believe the technical term is subject verb agreement). However, simply switching to "The emperors" and "were known as" would still leave a clunky sentence. And it also misses the fact that Zhou emperors were also called "son of heaven" (天子), even though they were not "emperors" (皇帝) I suggest rewording along the lines of "Following a practice established in the Zhou dynasty [perhaps earlier, you'd have to fact-check this], Ming emperors were known as the "Son of Heaven" (lang-zh template here)."
  • I see a "citation needed" tag in an image caption.
Drive-by comment
I suggest referring to the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty for formatting, as it recently became and FL itself and is, to me, easier to understand than this list. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Min968, I second what SilverTiger12 said. The formatting should generally match previous FLs unless there is some need to be different. Seeing as List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty is a FL and looks really good, I would convert to that format. Please ping me when you have responded and made the changes, and I will do a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I have made quite a few revisions not only based on the List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty but also of the Song dynasty and of the Han dynasty. Min968 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007 @SilverTiger12 @Toadspike Min968 (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

The list currently lacks column and row scopes, which are necessary for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Also pinging AirshipJungleman29 in case they're interested in looking this over, as they recently has a related successful nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty/archive1 (though I suspect they may not be interested as this isn't Mongol Empire related). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, although I'm also interested in why List of emperors of the Ming dynasty by length of reign is a separate article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 In my opinion, cramming all of the information into one article will make it too long and confuse the reader about the main content. It may also dilute the information. Min968 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Min968 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]
  • The lead outlines the scope of the article, saying that is about the Ming dynasty who ruled between 1368 and 1644. The lists themselves however also include rulers of the Southern Ming, who are not even mentioned in the lead. This discrepancy needs to be resolved, either by removing the southern Ming rulers or by adjusting the lead section.
  • "ruled over the whole of China proper spanning 276 years" grammatically this means that China proper spans 276 years, when you presumably meant their rule. That said, seeing as we already have the timeframe, why is the number of years needed?
  • "During their reign, China experienced a long period of economic growth and political stability." seems far too straightforward a statement for the first paragraph of the lead, see MOS:BEGIN
  • "Below is a complete list of the emperors of the Ming dynasty, including their personal, temple, posthumous, and era names." This should not be present, see MOS:THISISALIST.
  • "The emperor of the Ming dynasty, as well as the emperors during the imperial era of China (221 BC–1912)" "as well as" is not correct, you're looking for "as part of" or similar.
  • Could I ask for a quotation of the source text from citation 5 (Baud-Berthier (2003), pp. 84–85.) that supports most of the third lead paragraph?
  • "The Ming emperors resided in the Forbidden City, a 72-hectare complex of palaces and buildings in Beijing. Prior to 1420, the emperors' residence was located in a similar complex in Nanjing." The second sentence disproves the first; you cannot say a statement about all "the Ming emperors" and then immediately contradict it.
  • I have tagged an image caption for needing a citation.
  • "and drove the Mongols out of China" this could use more elucidation for those who aren't familiar with who "the Mongols" are.
  • "As the dynasty progressed, the subsequent emperors lacked the decisiveness of their founder" a tautology with "progressed" and "subsequent", and the emperors themselves didn't have a founder—their dynasty did.
  • MOS:THISISALIST also applies to the line at the top of #Posthumously recognized individuals.
  • It is not immediately clear what the brackets for the Hongwu Emperors's late era name end date means—it is likely that non-specialists will not understand. Please try to simplify.
  • Row scopes are still missing.
  • Notes a, b, and c are too far important to the article to be footnotes. They should be dedicated prose in their own section.
  • I suspect that the confusion noted above by a couple of reviewers might arise from the excessive columns devoted to names and dates, the habit to bold two different names in each row, and the lack of explanation of who each ruler is. Do the posthumous and temple names really need their own columns, or can they be incorporated in with another column ike I did at List of emperors of the Yuan dynasty? That list and e.g. List of Roman emperors also contain a short summary of each ruler, which would greatly improve the ability of this article to communicate information.
  • Might be worth incorporating the "posthumously recognised emperors" in the main list with different shading to indicate their different status, if possible.

Please ping me when you feel you have addressed the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Done somewhat. Min968 (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some contention over the list's format I will add my strong preference for the one suggested by Airship. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging @Min968 to follow up on this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

[edit]

I see you too have enjoyed my citations on the list of Chinese monarchs page :) I'll plan to look at this in the next few days. First, some intial thoughts, some perhaps overlapping with Airship to some extent:

  • List of emperors of the Ming dynasty by length of reign seems like a needless split that would not survive afd. Surely your main list & timeline essentially covers its content?
  • You need to better define the scope of this list. I think you will find it easier to start the list with the Hongwu Emperor; the "earlier" people were basically obscure peasant family of his, of whom practically nothing is known; I'm not surprised the only source you could find was Zhang Tingyu, not really a good enough (recent enough) source, I might add. This is much different than the List of emperors of the Qing dynasty, where earlier rulers were full-fledged leaders in their own right, but even that list seperates the tables.
    • Think of it like this, a reader will look for the first entry in a "list of Ming dynasty emperors" to find the 'first Ming emperor', would it make more sense to say that's the Zhu Bailiu or the Hongwu Emperor is?
    • I would think all four could belong in a note next to Hongwu's name. Perhaps you could link the Chinese pages there so readers have something, i.e. Zhu Bailiu [zh] – Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be a little my fault Aza24; I advised merging a separate "posthumously recognised" table with the main one, but I agree that we've ended up with too much emphasis on them, and quite like your suggestion of putting them in a note next to Hongwu's name. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a more detailed/focused list than the main list of Chinese monarchs, you can afford to include more detail. Specifically, the Life details for Xuande, Chenghua and Hongzhi, for example
  • I did not know Qian Haiyue exists but I'm glad he does! – Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because following the successful promotions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2 in July and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive1 earlier today, I think this is a good candidate. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

That's all I got. Nice work TonyTheTiger! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

List of pholidotans

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello, the name is Wolverine X-eye, a first-timer. I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. The list is about pangolins, perhaps one of the weirdest creatures out there. They have rough scales around their body, and are the most trafficked animals in the world according to some estimates. And that's all I really have to say about that, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matthewrb

[edit]

Welcome to FLC, Wolverine X-eye!

This is a new one on me, a FLC that hasn't even been patrolled by NPP yet...

  • Your lead image needs alt text per MOS:ALT.
    • Done
  • Is there a reason there isn't a "See Also" section? While not required, it would be useful. WP:SEEALSO
  • Does Commons have a category for this family? I found commons:Category:Manidae after a search. If so, could you add {{Commons category-inline}} to a new External Links section at the bottom of the article so readers can view more pictures if they would like? MOS:ELLAYOUT
    • Done
  • According to Talk:List of manids, this article is classified as a redirect. Is there a reason for that, or should we classify it as list-class?
    • It's list-class for me

And finally, this article was blanked and then reverted five minutes later, less than an hour before I started this review. I'm not sure if this violates WP:FL? criteria #6, since it was a one-time thing. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve closed the merge discussion, by the way. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger

[edit]

At eight extant species, this list meets the minimum entry requirement for FLC. However, I have several major concerns about the overall quality of this article.

  • First off, there was a ninth proposed species published on in 2023, this should be discussed briefly in the lede.
  • The lede also generally needs a good copy-edit; I may do so after my more major concerns are addressed.
  • Most of all: I am concerned that the prehistoric species and taxonomy thereof was copied uncritically from elsewhere on Wikipedia, because those articles are rife with known issues up to an including WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I suggest going straight to the sources to ensure the proper higher-level taxonomy is being followed.
  • Speaking of the prehistoric species, cases like this is exactly why {{Paleospecies table}} was created. I suggest using it.

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverTiger12: OK, I think I completed everything. Your thoughts? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 12:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you to reply so soon and I'm on a ship with crappy Wi-Fi. This review may take awhile, especially as I realize the paleospecies template might need tweaking. But I'm impressed with it so far. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverTiger12: Reached land yet? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 20:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Another note: you're inconsistent in how you list weight: in some cells you conjoin it to the length i.e. "...l and a weight of 30 kg (66 lb)", while in others it's placed free-floating so to speak below the length without conjunction. Please change it to be consistent (I prefer the first form but do not require it). SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 06:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilverTiger12, courtesy ping to see if you feel your comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. Therefore, I support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Crisco and image review

[edit]

Reviewing per request at my own FLC.

Question?

[edit]

Hi @FLC director and delegates: is this list ready for a source review or is something missing? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye: Source reviews can be done at any time, and we do try to regularly update the box at the top of the page pointing out which articles need them. I'll be doing so now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: Hey guys, you there? My nomination is now at the bottom of the "older nominations" section, as it's currently 44 days old, which is double that of the average FLC nom. It's worth mentioning that I'm miserable right now--correction, I've been miserable this whole year, and my motivation to edit Wikipedia is at an all time low, so I'd like to get this done as soon as possible. Of course, no pressure on your side. Just want to wrap up this year's worth of editing. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot force anybody to review this nomination and we cannot promote it without the appropriate amount of scrutiny and reviewing being performed. Participants at FLC are often less inclined to provide reviews for nominators who themselves don't review for others, so the best way to get your list promoted is to typically to provide quality reviews for others.
Realistically, maybe we should have pulled this nom because of the merge discussion, because that, in of itself, did likely stop others from reviewing it, worrying it might be a waste of their time.
Again though, no need to ping us unless it's urgent or there's an expectation we wouldn't see what needs attention. We do regularly check nominations to see if they have been appropriate reviewed. As for being double the average nom, that's incorrect. There are regular nominators who are often working on a series which is easier to review and are familiar with expectations and requirements, which is why their nomination gets promoted quicker in some cases. Even then, that's not always the case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: What are you on about? I'm just requesting that the source review be conducted as soon as possible. That's all. I don't know who conducts source reviews around here, so I pinged you guys in the hopes of getting one done. Keep in mind that this is my first nomination, so forgive any inaccuracies I may make. And lastly, I'm not forcing anyone to review anything; I'm just requesting for a source review since I thought you guys knew of a person who conducted such reviews, which I must say are highly specialized reviews that I doubt most FLC participants are remotely good at. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 20:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on about answering your comment... as mentioned, we can't force people to review for you. It's listed in the source review needed header, which is our attempt at requesting source reviews to various articles. That's about all we can do since, from my point of view, it'd be inappropriate for us as coordinator/delegates to request a specific individual review this. It feels like we'd be pressuring individuals with our implicit soft power, which is why we don't typically do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for clarifying. I just didn't expect to wait this long for a source review. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 21:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal

[edit]

List of South America hurricanes

[edit]

The template saying "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information" has been there for over 2 years. Yilku1 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist An orange tag in place for that long has no place on a featured list. Departure– (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Awards

[edit]
Notified: The Rambling Man, Video games, Awards, Apps, Lists

Looking at when the was nominated, which was three days after the awards were presented, it definitely seemed like a second year of these were expected but that never happened. And looking at the sources used, most of them come from the Appy Awards website itself. Also don't believe that What Mobile is a reliable source. It just looks too barebones to really be called a Featured List with it just being two paragraphs and a table. GamerPro64 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. I think it's possible that this is the best the article can ever be, which is commendable, but I also don't think every topic can qualify for featured status. I don't think this article qualifies for AFD, but the three secondary sources in Daily Telegraph, BBC, and What Mobile are all rather short and not particularly in-depth stories. A Google for "Appy Awards -wikipedia" does not turn up a lot of stuff that could be added, either. I don't think the secondary sourcing is strong enough here. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Frankly, I'm not even sure this passes WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG in general. That it should not be featured is a foregone conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I don't think this award passes WP:GNG, since beyond the inaugural event which was itself barely covered by reliable sources, there has been no further significant coverage that indicates notability here (WP:SUSTAINED). I would probably nominate this article for AfD or for a merger to Carphone Warehouse after this FLRC closes. Either way I don't think there's enough material here to make a FL sadly. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach season 3

[edit]
Notified: Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

This list is missing key sections (namely production and reception), has poor sourcing (too many primary sources or lower-quality sources), and overall fails to meet present-day expectations for season articles. See the related FLRCs for season 1 and season 2 – several editors in the latter discussion expressed support for delisting additional seasons. (FLC directors: I am unsure what the limit is for FLRCs, but for now, I will assume it is two nominations once one has started developing a consensus, like FLC.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Similar to season 2, season articles aren't lists so this can't be a FL, and as an article this isn't even close to a GA level. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for the same reasoning as seasons 1 and 2. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Pennsylvania

I am nominating this as the data is 25 (!!!) years out of date, missing both the 2010 and 2020 census updates. It was one of the earlier featured lists but hasn't been taken care of for well over a decade. Mattximus (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to 25 year old data, there is also lots of unsourced sections, no alt text for images, a census designated place is added for some reason (unsourced), outdated wording ("The map shown below is clickable"), broken format in notes, just very far from featured standards. Mattximus (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the original FLC nominator, Ruhrfisch (diff). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. Is there a model FL that we could look at for updates? Would updating to 2020 Census data be sufficient (or should the list have 2000, 2010, and 2020 data, and if so why not go back further in time)? Also, if we are making improvements, what time frame is there? - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just 2020 should be sufficient for this list. Any more and the table would be too wide. There is quite a bit more that just the new census data needed to get it up to standard, but I'm sure there should be sufficient time if someone is working on it. Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a link which I think should work as one reference for the 2020 US Census populations of all 52 incorporated divisions, as well as all 52 of their areas - see https://data.census.gov/profile?g=060XX00US4208102656. Or would you prefer links to each of the 52 individual 2020 US Census pages for each township, borough, and city for the population and 52 more individual links for each of the 52 areas (so 1 link or 104 links for references)? - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One link in header would be ideal. Usually the US Census includes a single document with all the counties on one page, but honestly that is minor and can be done later. I'm happy with the link you provided in the header. No need for 104 links. Mattximus (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could someone look at my alt texts added so far and make sure that they are OK? I am also not sure what to use for alt text for the small locator maps for each municipality. I thought of just using "locator map" as the alt text - would that be OK? I have looked for a single document for the 2020 Census for Lycoming County, but have not been able to find it so far. I am compiling the populations and areas for all 52 of the municipalities, and will then edit them all in at once. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably say something to the effect of "<blank township> highlighted in red on a map of Lycoming County." Locator map is possibly fine as well, but I don't think it's particularly helpful if we had all of the images with the exact same alt text. Appreciate your effort and work on this @Ruhrfisch! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not add alt text to the 52 Lycoming County locator maps yet. I could also do something like "Blank Township highlighted in red in northwest corner of Lycoming County map", to give a sense of where the twp is. Although there are a lot of small munis in the center of the county, which would be harder to describe. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text to all 52 locator maps in the first table per Hey man im josh's suggestion above "NAME highlighted in red on a map of Lycoming County". I think this addresses all of the major problems identified in the lede and Municipalities section. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and Improvements

[edit]

I am starting a new section to keep track of edits made to update and improve the list.

List of counties in Maryland

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject U.S. counties, nominator is long-inactive

2007 promotion, fails FLCR 3b with several citation needed tags and an unsourced section. Also fails 5c; flag and seal should not be sortable and the former counties table does not have column and row headers. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte 👸♥ 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the table accessibility issues that you've pointed out.
Remaining problems:
  1. Sourcing issues.
  2. The lead map, and the flags and seal images in the table require alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources – couldn't address all of the "citation needed" tags, but it's a start. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one more source but found nothing in reliable sources regarding the defunct counties. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is close to being resolved, which is the reason I haven't delisted it yet. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to let this unnecessarily linger. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1264175849"