Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

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

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. 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 edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video (FLC) List of international goals scored by Ian Rush (FLC) Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 (FLC) Michael Jackson albums discography (FLC) List of songs recorded by Chuck Mosley (FLC) List of prime ministers of Italy (FLC) Municipalities of Querétaro (FLC) List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks (FLC) List of Roman emperors (FLC) Source reviews needed List of chancellors of Austria (FLC) List of Interstate Highways in Washington (FLC) List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners (FLC) Ben&Ben discography (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University (FLRC) John Frusciante discography (FLRC)

Nominations[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Nathan Lyon[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Nathan Lyon is an Aussie cricketer who is more interestingly known as Gary the Goat. This list was more or less complete when I found it and one of the few among this type of list to not be FL, so I thought I'd take it through. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Melon Music Award for Album of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the Melon Music Awards is one of the biggest K-pop award ceremonies, and the Album of the Year category consists of one of the top prizes at the event. This list contains many quality sources and I believe it satisfies the criteria for featured lists. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Beginning in 2009, it consists of one of the daesang" => "Since 2009, it has comprised one of the daesang"
• "although there was no album accolade given in 2007–08" => "although there was no album accolade given in 2007 or 2008"
• "Album of the Year consisting of one of the ceremony's grand prizes" => "Album of the Year being one of the ceremony's grand prizes"
• "The criteria for the accolade currently consists" => "The criteria for the accolade currently consist" (criteria is a plural word, the plural of criterion)
• "having won four times in 2016 and 2018–20" => "having won four times in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020"
• In the table, why is 2009 designated as the 1st awards when it was actually the 5th?
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting done, the reason why 2009 is listed 1st is that the awards were not well recognized in its online period, and many South Korean sources refer to 2009 as the first award ceremony as it was the first time it was held in a traditional format. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

List of ochotonids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To no one's surprise, the train continues with another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; we've finished the orders Carnivora (10 lists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (4 lists), aka "hooved animals that aren't like horses"; and Perissodactyla (1 list), aka "hooved animals that are like horses", and here we are in Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", with the sister list to list of leporids, aka rabbits, which is also at FLC. Here we have the other half of Lagomorpha, the pika family, with list of ochotonids: they're not rodents, but actually tiny rabbit-cousins. Like so many of the lists already done, this is a unique one: all 34 species are in a single genus, so we don't get an interesting cladogram or really anything besides one big table. There are subgenera, but they're not universally used... because of the second odd thing: a good chunk of the family has recently been revamped. Research out of China in the last decade has determined that a lot of species should be split, generally on old subspecies lines, basically because the pika lives in high elevations so the population in every mountain range has diverged from each other. A few books have caught up to these splits, so we have data for the table, but in some cases we don't have articles, much less an IUCN rating or pretty pictures/range maps. Which is a shame, because it turns out pikas are adorable; it's not part of this list, but I don't mind telling you that most species build "haystacks" of plants to burrow next to for the winter, popping out occasionally for a snack, which is probably why that little guy is carrying a flower in his mouth in the lead picture instead of just eating it. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest wikilinking forbs, as this is not a well-known word
• Also possibly legumes and sedge
• That's all I could find! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, knew I forgot something. Done! --PresN 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

• File:LagomysRufescens.jpg — "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."

• Done, published 1876, copyright holder died 1905

• File:Ochotona pusilla.tif — source link, how do we know if it is CC-by-attr-SA-4.0? And if it is "between 1700 and 1880", then would be better tags available.

• Agreed, given that the source was published in 1881–1883, "CC-anything" is clearly wrong. Switched to pd-old (and PD-US-expired).

That it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. --PresN 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

List of operettas by John Philip Sousa[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A recently created list of John Philip Sousa's operettas. The formatting and other aspects of this list are similar to List of marches by John Philip Sousa. Meets FL criteria in my view. Looking forward to Chris and the Wonderful Comments – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

• "Most of Sousa's operettas showed the influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Sousa used few characteristics of their style" - they show the influence of G+S but don't use their style? I don't follow this, can you clarify?
  • Well, the prose does not say that Sousa operettas "don't use [G+S] style". I'm not sure what change do I need to make, can you please clarify. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Several prominent stage personalities, including DeWolf Hopper, were starred" => "Several prominent stage personalities, including DeWolf Hopper, starred"
• "Sousa composed Katherine, his first opera, in 1879" - opera or operetta?
• "portrayed the Spanish administration in Peru which became hugely popular during the Spanish–American War" - the administration became popular? Or the concept of portraying it?
  • The concept of portraying it; clarified (I think) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Mary Andrews Denison agreed to be the librettist for this operetta and composed few songs" - I think this should probably be "Mary Andrews Denison agreed to be the librettist for this operetta and composed a few songs", although "several songs" would probably be better wording
• "Few of Sousa's later compositions derived their score from the songs of this operetta." - do you actually mean "A few of Sousa's later compositions derived their score from the songs of this operetta."? If so, I again think "several" rather than "a few" would be better
• "After its premier" - last word is spelt wrongly
• "It is one of Sousa's most famous operetta." => "It is one of Sousa's most famous operettas."
• "Although Sousa considered this operetta one of his best work"=> "Although Sousa considered this operetta one of his best works"
• "In late 1939, "The Goose Girl's Song", a song from this operetta was rearranges" => "In late 1939, "The Goose Girl's Song", a song from this operetta, was rearranged"
• "Various critics commented on length of the production" => "Various critics commented on the length of the production"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments, I think I have made all the changes (These are my edits). And I did replace it by "several". The only that confuses me is the first point, can you clarify. Hope you are fine! Thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Re point 1, I'm not sure how Sousa's operettas show an influence from G+S if they use few (i.e. not many) characteristics of the G+S style. If they don't use these characteristics, how do they show the influence? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Does this works? The source does say that Sousa's operettas showed an influence from G+S, but done not lists various similarities. (After a few lines, even says "But for the most part the similarity ends there") – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Hey Chris, anything else? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Most of Sousa's operettas showed the influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Sousa adopted characteristics of their style like short recitatives and chorus finales. Most of the songs in the operettas were Sousa's own composition. According to author Paul E. Bierley, Sousa's operettas displayed a "high standard of morality". - is all of that sourced to the reference after the word "morality"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
            • Yes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
              • Cool. In that case happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Veer-Zaara[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I believe this list is comprehensive enough... —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

*"Yash Chopra garnered several accolades for his direction in Veer-Zaara" => "Yash Chopra garnered several accolades for his direction of Veer-Zaara." (note the full stop at the end) "Set in the background of" => "Set against the background of" "Soundtrack for Veer-Zaara is" => "The soundtrack for Veer-Zaara is" "based on the composition by the late Madan Mohan, which was later revised by his son Sanjeev Kohli" => "based on compositions by the late Madan Mohan, which were later revised by his son Sanjeev Kohli" "on the sets that were built" => "on sets that were built" "with the editing being finished by Ritesh Soni" - Soni presumably didn't just finish the editing, he did all of it, so this should be "and was edited by Ritesh Soni" "the film emerged as the India's" => "the film emerged as India's" "highest-grossing film of the year with earning" => "highest-grossing film of the year, earning" "and two Best Supporting Actress" - doesn't really work grammatically, I suggest "and two nominations for Best Supporting Actress" "at the 50th Filmfare Awards" - move this to after "eleven nominations" One mention of Anil Mehta in the table sorts incorrectly under M That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• "Veer Pratap Singh (Shah Rukh Khan), an Indian Air Force pilot, and Zaara Hayaat Khan (Zinta)" — why does SRK has his full name mentioned, while Preity Zinta has just her surname mentioned?
• "by the late Madan Mohan" — I don't think that on Wikipedia, we ever mention someone as 'late'. Is it important to specify that he had died?
• "Declared a commercial success" — who declared it?
• "It won 34 awards out of 92 nominations" — 'It' here refers to the film, or Rachel Dwyer's listing of the film in that list? Specify
• I also see inconsistency in listing the names/surnames in the last paragraph of the lead
• In the sortable table, every entry which deserves a link should be linked every single time.

That is it for now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Support for promoting this to FL status. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — [1]

• Inconsistency in linking the media outlet/website. The Hindu is linked in Ref#1, but not in Ref#4. Bollywood Movie Awards linked in Ref#9.2, but not in Ref#9.3; check all citations.
• "Amsterdam, Netherlands" and "New Delhi, India" are the only mentioned location in the references. You might want to remove it for consistency with rest of the article.
• Rest, looks good. Link checker tools shows that all the links are accessible. The two links it reported were maybe false errors, because I could access them.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2021[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

With 2021 out of the way, it's time to nominate this list ready to (hopefully) add it to the Featured Topic. This time round, I have added DanTheMusicMan2 as a co-nom, as he did the legwork of adding each week's number ones as they were announced. Hope that's OK, Dan! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Passes my image review, though if you could replace File:191125 Taylor Swift at the 2019 American Music Awards (cropped).png with her any other image, would be better. Licence wise, it is fine (CC licences are non-revocable), but the fact that Cosmopolitan UK changed their video description to make licencing a bit more restrictive looks a bit ... Regardless, we have a lot of images in Commons:Category:Taylor Swift in 2019. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• Passes my source review as well! On first read, I got nothing that could be an issue with the sources. On second read, the only thing I could get was that you can change the link target of Vulture in Ref#6 from [[New York (magazine)|Vulture]] to [[Vulture (magazine)|Vulture]] (a redirect page) just so that if redirects to a particular section. Ref#12 to Ref#113 — all good, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Gigi Riva[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The article has a good lead and is understable, the content is sourced, it has never had any edit war recently. The article is stable (I only made many changes on the last two days to improve it and it's been edited less than 50 times and has existed for 5,5 years). The table is accessible. Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*Photo caption needs a full stop  Done "Since debuting for Italy against Hungary on 27 June 1965, Riva has scored 35 goals in 42 appearances" - this tense makes it sound like he is still playing. Suggest "After debuting for Italy against Hungary on 27 June 1965, Riva scored 35 goals in 42 appearances"  Done "His first international goal came on 1 November 1967, in his fourth appearance for his country against Cyprus," - this reads as if it was the fourth time he had played against Cyprus. Suggest "His first international goal came in his fourth appearance for his country on 1 November 1967, against Cyprus,"  Done "where he scored a hat-trick" => "when he scored a hat-trick"  Done "Riva also scored three goals for his national team in a 4–1 win" => "Riva scored a second hat-trick for his national team in a 4–1 win"  Done "He has scored six times against Luxembourg" => "He scored six times against Luxembourg"  Done "On 31 March 1973, he scored against them four goals" => "On 31 March 1973, he scored four goals against them"  Done "He has also scored seven braces" => "He also scored seven braces"  Done You also need to explain/link what a "brace" is, as this is not a common term  Done "Riva has scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship" => "Riva scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship"  Done In the table you link countries every time they appear but only link stadiums and competitions the first time. As the table is sortable you should link everything every time.  Done The table says that he scored a goal at the Cardiff City Stadium in 1968, which is impossible as that stadium was built in 2009  Done Date format in refs 1 and 6 does not match the others  Done Refs 2 and 5 are the same  Done That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude:  Done Dr Salvus 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96[edit]

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

* "Gigi Riva is an Italian former association football forward who represented the Italy national football team. He is the country's all-time top goalscorer." - perhaps these two sentences could be merged together?  Done Wikilink hat-trick only on the first mention of the phrase  Done "he scored four goals against them during a 1974 FIFA World Cup qualifier." - clarify that this is Luxembourg  Done "where he scored the opening goal in the replay of the final helping Italy to a 2–0 win." - please state which team Italy beat to win the UEFA Euro 1968 Final 2-0  Done Wikilink the sole mention of West Germany in the prose to the relevant article  Done The image in the lede should ideally have alt text per MOS:ALT and it should be upright per MOS:UPRIGHT  Done "Riva scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship,[2] three goals at the FIFA World Cup, eight goals in friendly matches,[2] nine goals in UEFA European Championship qualifiers[2] and 14 goals in FIFA World Cup qualifiers.[2]" - try not to indicate the reference is verifying all the information in this sentence like this  Done Use the Abbr template on the No. column in the main table to indict to the reader hovering over it that it means number  Done Consider adding an extra column in the main table stating the cap in which the goal(s) were scored as its common with other "List of international goals scored by xxxxxxxx" that are featured lists  Done "Friedrich-Ludwig-Jahn-Sportpark, Ost-Berlin, East Germany" - please change the name of the city in bold to its English name (East Berlin)  Done "Stadio Municipale, Torino, Italy" - same issue as above (Turin)  Done All of the references might want to be archived for future-proofing  Done That is all I have for this review MWright96 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC) @MWright96:  Done Dr Salvus 20:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC))

Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Russia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Russia has 30 WH Sites, so this is the longest list so far (I may nominate Italy next, which is the longest ;) ). Style is standard. Portugal's list has already seen some support so I am adding a new nomination. There are probably some simple typos throughout the list that I didn't spot, feel free to fix them on the checking. Tone 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• "First five sites" → "The first five sites"
• Expand link for Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments from "Saint Petersburg" to "monuments of Saint Petersburg"
• "inscribed to the list"/"most recent inscription" – the word "inscribe" feels weird in this context; is there a better word that could be used?
• "during the World War II" → "during World War II"
• "seabirds, snow geese, a large walrus colony" → "seabirds, snow geese, and a large walrus colony"
• "Karst" should not be capitalized (two occurrences)
• "National park covers parts of the Kolyma Lowland and Yana-Indigirka Lowland." – sentence fragment, should be fixed
• Site names starting with "The" should sort by the first word after that, not by "The"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Fixed, thanks! As for the "The" sorting, UNESCO sorts them like that, see Italy for example. So, unless there is a strong policy in favor of this approach, I would leave it as it is. Let me know. --Tone 08:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the same sorting applies for Russia here, I'll let it stand. On a different note, that page seems to list a new site that was just added – Valley of the Kings of Tuva – so we should probably add that. But I'm fairly confident you can add that with no issues, so I'll go ahead and support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Wow, look at it, they added it when I was just about through the list, haha. I'll add it. Thanks for the support! --Tone 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

;Comments "Even if the buildings have seen periodic repairs" => "Although the buildings have seen periodic repairs" "At the depth of 1,700 metres" => "At a depth of 1,700 metres" "with the age of 25 million years" => "with an age of 25 million years" "has the interior walls covered by frescos by master Dionisius" => "has interior walls covered by frescos by the master Dionisius" "This transnational sites" => "This transnational site" "parts of them surviving to present day" => "parts of them surviving to the present day" "As is was not covered by ice" => "As it was not covered by ice" "Bolghar was the intermittent capital of Volga Bulgaria, a Bulgars state" => "Bolghar was the intermittent capital of Volga Bulgaria, a Bulgar state" "The transnational sites comprises areas of Daursky Nature Reserve in Russia" => "The transnational site comprises areas of Daursky Nature Reserve in Russia" "The frescos in the cathedral are among best examples of Russian Orthodox paintings" => "The frescos in the cathedral are among the best examples of Russian Orthodox paintings" "The Kremlin in the town of Rostov is overlooking the Lake Nero." => "The Kremlin in the town of Rostov overlooks the Lake Nero." "Mammals species present include" => "Mammal species present include" Fantastic work as ever Tone! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! --Tone 19:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows fairly closely to the level of detail and information on another featured list, List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per crition 3c. This list of people is already at Detroit_Lions#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Famers and List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, which is sortable by team. While compared to the former this list also has the overall career beyond those with the Lions and the pro bowls, those could be easily added there, with no need for a separate page. The Packers list also largely duplicates Green_Bay_Packers#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Fame_members and could be merged as well; there's a reason until you made this there were only four lists of this type. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for for your response. On the one hand, you're right, a stripped down version is already included at Detroit_Lions#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Famers. On the other hand, I personally like to see the accolades of those who made it to the hall of fame from a specific team and the additional details that can be included that are not already in the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees page. I acknowledge what I like may not be the same as what others like, but I do believe there is a case that can be made for the usefulness of this article when compared to the other two lists. People like to learn more about their team, and a dedicated page about their guys is something a lot of them like to read more about. Based on some feedback I've received I have work to do, but I hope you'll at least consider it if I flush this page out further. Please be blunt and let me know if you think it won't be worth re-nominating, even after improvements. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not think this same list of people should be listed three times, and all of these lists should be merged/redirected with further data fitting fine in the main page. However I'm not the only reviewer so if others have positive feedback I'll be glad to see this improved. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments (ec with the above)

• Opening sentence is very weird, starting with "The team" as if the subject had already been introduced. Find a way to reword.

• Done

• Refs go after punctuation, not before, also there shouldn't be a space between the punctuation and the ref

• Sorry, could you clarify this for me? Are you referring to reference 2, which is in the middle of a sentence?

• Seems to have been resolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• "The Lions organization is [....] and compete" - singular/plural disagreement

• Done

• "The franchise has won 4 NFL championships." - write the number as a word

• Done

• The lead generally feels very thin, there must surely be more to say. The lead on the Green Bay list linked above is far longer.
• "Dick "Night Train" Lane, a defensive back who played 6 seasons for the Lions" => "Dick "Night Train" Lane, a defensive back who played six seasons for the Lions"

• Done

• Running back isn't one word

• Done - You're right, I should have realized that was just a redirect going to the main page.

• In the Doak Walker caption, the & should be written as a word

• Done

• Names should sort based on surname, not forename
• "All-Pros" heading needs some sort of explanation (or at the very least a wikilink to somewhere appropriate) as I for one haven't got a clue what it means

• Done

• Same for "Pro Bowls", whatever that is

• Done

• Dashes in the career span column are different to those in the next column

• Done

• All the notes are, frankly, redundant. The table clearly shows that Culp played for 14 years, only two of which were with Detroit. There really is no need for a footnote to say that he only spent a minor portion of his career with Detroit.
• You don't need to link to List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees in two different places

• Done

• In the refs you show the same publisher three different ways - "ProFootballHOF.com. NFL Enterprises.", just "www.profootballhof.com" and "Pro Football Hall of Fame". Pick one and use it throughout.
• All images need alt text
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You gave a lot of great feedback. I appreciate it. I marked a lot of them as done and the rest of them I'll work on further when I get a chance. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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. !|Class becomes !scope=col | Class.
• 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. | style=" color:white;" | 1963 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1963.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 03:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I hadn't considered accessibility before your post. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Navadurga[edit]

Nominator(s): Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Navadurga is considered as nine manifestations of Goddess Durga in Hinduism; I think this list is interesting and informative. This list was created a few years ago but was not in the proper form and has been edited by me as per ideal list guidelines. This list can be a FL, so here it is. Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources used here are nowhere close to the kind you would expect for a FL. There's a blog, a kitchen appliance brand website, and several others that are definitely not high-quality reliable sources. AryKun (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above, there will be unquestionably be better sources available. Also, the text could do with proofreading by a native English speaker, as there are many fundamental issues with grammar, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per all of the above reasons. Some sources appear to be written for children, and I doubt if it is reliable enough. But this is a potential topic. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Angelic Layer episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Having recently promoted the List of Yuri on Ice episodes to FL, I thought I would use what I have learned during the previous nomination to promote another list of anime episodes to FL as well. I have tried my best to follow the same guidelines with this list, having added a considerable amount of information to it recently. I just hope that this time the process, whether the list gets promoted or not, takes less than five months. ISD (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Some/all of the episode descriptions are identical to those on this other Wiki. Were they copied from there to here? From here to there? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've had a look at their history pages, I think the Wikipedia list came first (here to there), as I can see episode descriptions here before the creation of such articles in the Angelic Layer Wiki which only dates back to September 2015. ISD (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest rewriting the summaries from a more neutral point of view.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • OK. Should I withdraw the nomination for now while I do this, or leave it here? ISD (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I would definitely suggest that at least some of the summaries need rewriting. Sentences like "Who will claim victory in this epic battle of the ages?" sound like something that would be included in the blurb on the back of a DVD, but for an encyclopedia they need to be more of a straightforward statement of facts i.e. this happens, then this happens, then this happens. Hope that makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• OK. This may take me a while, but I'll see what I can do. ISD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="8%" | # !! English Title becomes !scope=col width="8%" | # <line break> !scope=col | English Title.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 03:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling[edit]

Nominator(s): Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has won many different awards for Harry Potter and other work; I hope it makes for an interesting list. This was created a couple of weeks ago, spawning from revamps to the Rowling article during its FAR. Folks felt it may be ready for FLC, so here it is. This was collaborative; thanks to SandyGeorgia. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am not an FLC regular, but having spent the better part of the last three weeks in a deep dive on sourcing at J. K. Rowling, I am confident this list is comprehensive. I am flattered that O-D considers it a collaboration, but it is all Olivaw-Daneel's work; I have kept a watchful eye, added a few citations, and did a wee bit of nitpicking, not rising to the level of significant or even barely significant contributor, but with my usual inflated edit count because of how I edit. To my understanding, this list well meets WP:WIAFL, the prose and sourcing are at featured standard, and I anticipate supporting once FLC regulars have had a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Support after several fine reviews got out the remaining nitpicks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the HP book titles should be written in full in the lead, rather than having "Harry Potter and the" removed
• "Rowling also won the University College Dublin's" => "Rowling also won University College Dublin's" (it's not referred to as the UCD)
• In the speculative fiction section, I would write "Andre Norton Award" in full, as she didn't literally win Andre Norton :-)
• Her 2010 award in the pop culture section was given by the National Magazine Company, so you may as well say that rather than the nebulous "leading magazines"
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, I think I've addressed everything. Thanks for the review. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis[edit]

Will try not to screw this up

• "Some scholars feel" — only one scholar is cited...
  • The source is summarizing other scholars' opinions (not just her own). Regardless I've added one more cite.
• "literature in 2000, and three"/"in 2012, and for her services to literature" — IDK about this, but I feel like the shouldn't be a comma (I'm probably wrong but I just thought I'd note it in case I'm right)
• "social, moral, and" — is there a reason for the comma? The rest of the article doesn't seem to use the serial comma
  • All serial commas removed.
• "where she spoke at the 2008 commencement ceremony" — I'm unsure whether she spoke at all the universities' ceremonies or only Harvard's. Can this be clarified?
• The Tales of Beedle the Bard, etc. should sort by Tales, not The
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Harry Potter should be italicised in citations
• Per MOS:SMALLCAPS, the citation capitalisation is inconsistent. Some are written in title-case while the others in sentence-case.
  • All done.

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Also, I've made a few tweaks. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Also, also, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks, I think I've addressed all comments. And sure I'll take a look. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

A very wise human being indeed. I've archived some of the references, use this next time you wanna auto-archive. This article looks pretty neat, just a few suggestions.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

* The alt text of both photos is repetitive when placed beside the caption. Common practice is to just make the alt text "Refer to caption". Done. Year brackets after mentions of a book would be great. For example "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998)". Added year of award win. "Some scholars feel that its reception exposed a literary prejudice against children's books: for instance, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was nominated for the Whitbread Book of the Year, but the award body gave it the children's prize instead (worth half the cash amount)." I would rather have this placed as the last sentence of the paragraph. Rephrased to shift scholarly opinion to the end of the sentence. Whitbread is the most prominent of the lit awards here (see added context about a Nobel laureate), so I think its current location makes sense. Open to better phrasing. "It received speculative fiction awards"-- considering "including general literature prizes, honours in children's literature and speculative fiction awards" is not that far away, this bit sounds repetitive. Changed to be more specific. "she gave her fans"-- suggest changing "her fans" to "the Harry Potter fandom", as the HP fandom doesn't necessarily idolize Rowling the human. Done. At General literature: at the last four rows, suggest merging the Chamber of Secrets and Prizoner of Azkaban rows. Same case with "Troubled Blood" And "the Cursed Child" And "UK" And maybe "honourary degree" I agree there's some repetition, but my understanding is that rowspans internal to a table (where rows continue on either side) are usually discouraged. (Looking at past FLCs, rowspans in general seem to be discouraged, for accessibility.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) I see, thanks for clarifying. I read other FLs to see if this is okay and this turns out to be pretty common practice. Personally though I prefer merging. For footnote c, suggest changing "es" to "es" Not entirely clear what you are requesting, but I changed it to "Spanish". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Added the {{Abbr}} template, which is what I think was being suggested. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Yep, that was my suggestion. Sorry Sandy, should've nowiki-ed it. At Academic, Royal Society of Edinburg row: "Fellowship"-- link Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Done. @Gerald Waldo Luis: I've responded to everything so far (unsigned replies are from me). Thanks for the archive and comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support this FLC after all my comments got resolved. Good job! GeraldWL 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I offered some comments a bit back on this and I suggested that it be nominated because I feel that it fufills the criteria. It passes my source review, but the coords might want someone else to do one as well. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96[edit]

• "Two years later, she was recognized as a Chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur" - should the word in bold end in "sed"?
• " Royal Society of Edinburgh (HonFRSE) and Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (FRCPE)." - the word "the" is missing at the beginning of both of these academic establishments

That is all I have for this list MWright96 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@MWright96 Switched to "-ised" and added "the". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Have no further comments MWright96 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This article contains the timeline of all tropical cyclones during the 2020 Pacific hurricane season. Thank you in advance for your review. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review from Kavyansh — Pass[edit]

• The infobox image can take ALT text
• File:2020 Pacific hurricane season summary map.png — It says that "This file may be updated to reflect new information."
• All the own work images are fine, thanks to FleurDeOdile.
  • Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• "The season officially started on May 15" — What does "officially" mean here? Who determines it?
• "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" — our article does not capitalize it
• "Four time zones are utilized in the basin ... and dissipations during the season." — I wonder is this information necessary for the lead? I'll move it to the "Timeline" section instead, just below that graph
• "35 mph (55 km/h)" v. "111 miles per hour (179 km/h)" — be consistent on whether both units should be in abbreviation or not.
• "of a kelvin wave" — our article capitalizes 'K'
• "According to the NHC's protocol" — spell 'NHC'
• That is it; nice work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed your comments. Thanks. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I see that image review comments are not addressed; particularly that does File:2020 Pacific hurricane season summary map.png needs to be updated? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Whoops sorry Kavyansh.Singh, I completely forgot about that part. Added alt text to the season track map. The file itself does not need to be updated at this point--all data is finalized. That notice is just there to encompass the time before seasonal data is finalized (which occurs a few months after the season ends). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  No issues. Looks good; Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "in the Central Pacific—the region between the International Date Line and 140°W, and ended" - the clause starts with a dash but ends with a hyphen
• "The season officially started on May 15 [....] The season began with the formation of Tropical Depression One-E, which developed on April 25" - do these two sentences not contradict each other......?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, ChrisTheDude, I believe I have addressed these comments. Thanks for the review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

72nd Primetime Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Following up on my successful FL nomination for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards and the ongoing nomination for the corresponding Creative Arts Emmys (now at three supports), I've continued my work by updating the previous year's ceremony. Of note this year: Schitt's Creek dominates everything by sweeping the comedy categories for the first time ever – quite the feat for a show that had no Emmys before this year! (Though I'll always be a bit disappointed that it kept one of my favorite shows from winning anything...) As always, any feedback is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • Good catch, thanks!
• Why is the "Criticism" section separate from the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection? I would think that it would fit better directly after the "Critical reviews and viewership" subsection rather than after the "In Memoriam" section. Since the criticism is directed at the nominations, I would rename the section to be more specific.
  • The section has been moved accordingly, and the section heading is now "Criticism regarding lack of diversity", which is what the 87th Academy Awards article uses for similar issues.
• For the second paragraph of the "Critical reviews and viewership" sub-section, I would recommend varying how the critics are introduced as for each of the three instances it is "X of/from Y publication" and it can read as rather repetitive.
  • Done.
• There are a few items linked multiple times in the list itself, such as Schitt's Creek and the 71st Primetime Emmy Awards, when items should only be linked on their first mention.
  • Done.

Great work with the list. Once my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC (which is about a rather obscure song so it is not really related to this), but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the feedback! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. The list looks solid to me. I support the FLC for promotion. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review – pass[edit]

Let's not screw this up...

Formatting

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Schitt's Creek should be italicised, regardless of what the original source does
• Per MOS:ALLCAPS, be consistent with capitalisation
• ref 44: (EXCLUSIVE) → (Exclusive) (MOS:ALLCAPS)
• ref 52: Faux House: "This Isn't A MAGA Rally" → Faux House: 'This Isn't a MAGA Rally' (MOS:QWQ)
• ref 56: why is Penske Media Corporation listed as the publisher when no other publication (published by the corporation) lists the corporation
  • All items above: Done.
• ref 37, 64, 65, 67: The works titles should not be italicised, no?
  • I've generally adopted the approach that if the website is for a company/organization and is secondary to their main work, it should not be italicized (i.e., Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, United Parcel Service), while if the website is part of the main work of that group, it should be italicized (i.e., pretty much everything else in the article). The documentation for Template:Cite web isn't super clear on this, but it's the approach I've adopted.
• ref 84: May Be "Ethnic Or Niche" → May Be 'Ethnic or Niche' (MOS:QWQ)
  • Done.

Reliability

Seems fine.

Verifiability

• Basically all the sources with pages: it is rather unhelpful to cite (amount of page numbers). Can page numbers be added?
  • Any sources in particular where this is an issue? There are several PDFs with multiple pages, but most are used as a source in their entirety – for instance, the winners and nominations lists.

    Oh, I think I was referring to ref #2 as I don't think a whole 77-page PDF would be required to cite a sentence as simple as that. Pamzeis (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    I see now, done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Spotchecks checked out :)

Pamzeis (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks for your thorough comments! Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Great! That's a pass for the source review! Pamzeis (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oh, and BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

• Per WP:OVERLINKING you shoudln't link popular cities (Los Angeles), but I will leave it up to you to decide.
  • Since the LA setting is fairly important, I think it should be kept.
• "During the ceremony, Emmy Awards were handed out in 23 categories." Is the usage of "Emmy" really necessary? Considering it's the Emmy Awards, I would assume they award Emmy's only there unless other awards were given too.
  • I wrote it this way so I could link Primetime Emmy Awards to it; as the main article on the broader topic, I think it's important to include it, and it can't go at the beginning (i.e., "The 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards honored...") per MOS:BOLDLINK.
• "The nominations for the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards were announced on July 28, 2020, by host" - not sure if the comma after 2020 is needed.
  • MOS:DATECOMMA suggests this format.
• "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations this year,[4] and each would receive its first wins this year as well." Too verbose. Why not just "Disney+, Apple TV+, and Quibi all received their first Emmy nominations and wins this year."?
  • Done.
• "Additionally, the annual Governors Ball was cancelled for the first time in its history, with the Television Academy making a $1 million" - there should be an nbsp between $1 and million.
• "Several rule changes were announced in December 2019." MOS:NBSP between December and 2019.
• "In March 2020" - nbsp
  • All spacing: done.
• " When the Los Angeles Times reported the criticism" - duplicate link. You have already linked LA Times in "Critical reviews and viewership".
  • Good catch; done.

That's it. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments! I've replied above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support - good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate comments on my FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from MWright96[edit]

• "for most wins for an individual in one year," - for the most wins
• "following Angels in America as a miniseries in 2004." - not mentioned by the CBC but it is by the NJ.com source
  • The CBC article mentions it: "The only other series to do the same in any other category was the HBO miniseries Angels in America..."
• "only made up 1% of the nominees." - percent per MOS:PERCENT
• " who died on August 28, 2020," - E! Online citation covering this chunk of information doesn't state Boseman's date of death

That's all I've got for this review MWright96 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@MWright96: Thanks for the comments! I left a reply above; everything else has been addressed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Portugal[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Portugal has 17 sites on the list and a further 19 tentative sites. The format is standard. I have another list nominated, for Georgia, which is already seeing support. As a side note, Madeira is missing on the map, even it has one site. But as the site covers several parts of the island, it would make little sense to add a map of Madeira with a dot in the centre. Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Town's defence systems include" => "The town's defence systems include"
• "The convent was founded in the 12th-century" => "The convent was founded in the 12th century"
• "The city Évora" => "The city of Évora"
• "A typical feature of the city are" => "A typical feature of the city is"
• "a relic of a forest type that has 40-15 million years ago covered large parts of Southern Europe" => "a relic of a forest type that covered large parts of Southern Europe 40-15 million years ago"
• "Between late 15th and 17th centuries" => "Between the late 15th and 17th centuries"
• "the most known product of the region" => "the best-known product of the region"
• "Wine production in the Pico Island begun" => "Wine production in the Pico Island began"
• "Portugal regain independence from Spain in 1640" => "Portugal regained independence from Spain in 1640"
• "The main buildings were build in the Baroque style" => "The main buildings were built in the Baroque style"
• "Even if the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century" => "Although the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century"
• "The town of Mértola is located at the banks" => "The town of Mértola is located on the banks"
• "Sites along the route are in present Uruguay" => "Sites along the route are in present-day Uruguay"
• "They are the smallest and the oldest (27My)" - what's "27My"?
• "it contained world's largest pointed arch" => "it contained the world's largest pointed arch"
• "constructed through centuries on the island of Madeira" => "constructed over centuries on the island of Madeira"
• "systematic mapping has only begun in the 1960s" => "systematic mapping only began in the 1960s"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you! After reading the text several times, some typos just slip through... --Tone 12:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, great to see you again with another WHS nom! GeraldWL 11:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) I've never seen the second sentence of the lead in the leads of other WHS articles; they're mostly placed after "Criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." This is the style I am using now after some nominations had comments that the intro could be expanded. "only natural site, the other sites" --> "only natural site; the other sites" Last sentence is convoluted. Suggest changing to "One site, the Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde, is shared with Spain, thus the only transnational Portuguese World Heritage Site." "the Stock exchange" --> "the Stock Exchange Palace" All the other sites' description start with "The", whereas some start with "This". Needs consistency. I think this is fine, from grammar point of view? I start "This nomination" those items that are not of type "The church" or similar. "The extension to the World Heritage Site covers the Couros (Leather) Zone"-- I don't think the translation parantheses is needed, as readers who are trivially curious as to what 'couros' means can just Google-translate it. "This nomination comprises the historic downtown (Baixa) of Lisbon." The brackets make it sound like it's secondary information, when it's not. Suggest changing to "This nomination comprises Baixa, the historic downtown of Lisbon. Suggest changing the Commons template to Template:Commons-inline per WP:ELLAYOUT: "If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using 'inline' templates." I am not sure about this one, should I write it in a bullet instead? Done it for ya :) GeraldWL 02:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Ah yes, I though that was the case. Thanks :)

• • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done most, thank you! Some comments inline above. --Tone 12:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the responses! I took a quick last glance at this list, and I think it's all good now for me. Support. GeraldWL 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet[edit]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Timothée Chalamet is a critically acclaimed actor that has garnered numerous accolades and I believe this list meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar in quality to other actors' accolades lists. Look forward to your comments! Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Refs after 1939 are not in the correct order
• None of the notes are full sentences, so they don't need full stops
• When you sort the Result column, it goes Winner > Runner-up > Nominated > 15th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd. If winner is the "top" outcome then surely 2nd should rank higher than 3rd, 3rd higher than 4th, etc?
• Critics' Choice Movie Awards 2021 row has the columns the wrong way round
• That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed your comments. For the results column sorting, it is sorting based on the label itself and not the order of importance so makes sense how it is sorting with the 2nd–15th places grouped together at the top in ascending sort while runner-up and won are at the bottom. - Brojam (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, let's see what other editors think. IMO if a column contains data of this type then it should sort essentially from top to bottom in terms of how close the person came to winning, so coming 2nd would be closer to winning than 15th, not further away, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

* Source from The New York Times should be tagged as "url-access=limited" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Link to 12th Academy Awards from "youngest" in the lead is not logical; suggest removing the link or moving it somewhere else Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "Los Angeles Film Critics Association and National Board of Review" → "Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and National Board of Review" (consistent use of serial commas) Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Footnote a indicates that the year refers to when the ceremony was held, but it actually refers to the year the ceremony is recognizing films/shows/plays from – would suggest rewording that note accordingly I've correct the years so that they all do indeed indicate the year when the ceremony was held. They were previously a mix of both. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Merge duplicated nominated works for International Cinephile Society, Online Film Critics Society, and San Diego Film Critics Society Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Remove all links for categories at Dorian Awards, Hollywood Film Awards, IFTA Awards, and Teen Choice Awards (they don't link to a page for that specific category as expected, and linking to the main awards page duplicates the first column) Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Suggest renaming Critics' Choice Movie Award categories from "Best Movie X" to "Best X" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) The King should sort by "King", not "The" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees – Youngest nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role" should be removed from the "See also" section, as the link is used in the lead Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "List of Timothée Chalamet performances" should also be removed from "See also", as the page redirects to Timothée Chalamet, which is already linked Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments! I've addressed them all. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Support – I made a small tweak to the years, but everything else looks good to go! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of leporids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; having finished with the orders Carnivora (list of carnivorans + 9 sublists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (list of artiodactyls + 3 sublists), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses"; and Perissodactyla (list of perissodactyls + 0 sublists), aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)", we can now start on Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits". This subgroup is two families and a capstone list, and here is the first family list: list of leporids, the hares and rabbits. Turns out there's an awful lot of them: 73 species all over the world, and while there's a lot of differences between them they're all pretty recognizable as rabbits. Unlike prior lists, we have several redlinks here without pictures; there's been a lot of upheaval in the taxonomy of the South American cottontail rabbits in the last decade or so due to a few genetic studies, which hasn't made its way into nice Wikipedia articles yet. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Wikilink forbs, sedge, tubers, rhizomes as comparatively obscure words
• "Grass and well as shrubs" - typo
• Sagebrush is linked twice
• That's all I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 14:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• "called an leporid" → "called a leporid"

• Done

• "colloquially hares and rabbits." → Since you use "a leporid" before this, shouldn't this be "a hare or rabbit"?

• Done

• Maybe link Sylvilagus instead of cottontail rabbit since it appears first.

• Done

• "IUCN red list" → Capitalize.

• Done, somehow that's been missed for all the prior lists

• Andean tapeti has an available image that should be added (it's in the article infobox).

• Done, thanks! Not sure how that one got missed

• Image in the lead needs alt text (and I question the usefulness of "gray rabbit" as an alt for every image).

• Done; since the purpose of the images is to provide a visual representation of the named animal, there's not much useful for the alt text

• Haven't checked the references, but nice work here, very little I could fault. AryKun (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Although not needed, a review at the FLC for List of birds of Nauru would be appreciated.

• @AryKun: Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support

Image review from Kavyansh — Pass[edit]

• File:Lepus hainanus.jpg — How do we know if it is c. 1900? The source does not mention that.

• It does not indeed, don't know where they got that from; that said, the artist died in 1912 (John Gerrard Keulemans), so it would still be 100 years

• File:Lepus coreanus.jpg — How is this CC-2.0 Korea? The source has an icon. Hovering over that tell me "Attribution", and it links to this page, which I think is CC-4.0 Korea.

• I think it's because commons doesn't have a cc-by-4.0-kr template (or a 3.0). I've added that to the image page.

• On another note, I think, writing that it has been licenced under cc-by-4.0-kr, and using the normal cc-by-4.0 tag would be much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Agreed, done. --PresN 17:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• File:Lepus callotis side.jpg — Where is this pic from? Is it own work?

• Unclear; replaced with a different picture (iNaturalist, cc-by-4.0).

• File:Sylvilagus brasiliensis meridensis (Sylvilagus meridensis) - Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria - Genoa, Italy - DSC02875.JPG — "Photography was permitted in the museum without restriction" is fine, but Italy does not have any freedom of panorama. See Freedom of panorama#Italy. The image is properly licenced, but the 3-D figure of that (rabbit, I'd say) is not.

• Replaced

• File:Nuttall's Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii).jpg — How is this Government work?

• Presumably because Justin Wilde, who only ever uploaded this one picture (and I can't find evidence that it was ever uploaded somewhere else before then), was a government employee on a government site (as he put in his edit summary), and so labelled it a government photo instead of pd-self.

• I'll WP:AGF on that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it! Note: I did not check any maps, as I feel they mostly are appropriately licenced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks! Responded inline. --PresN 16:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for all the leporids' images. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Kavyansh — Pass[edit]

• Ref#104 — doi=10.1093/jmammal/gyz126, shouldn't the doi be marked as openly accessible?
• Ref#123 — should be an en-dash, not em-dash in the title.
• Johns Hopkins University Press should be linked in "Feldhamer, George A.; Thompson, Bruce Carlyle; Chapman, Joseph A. (2003). Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-7416-1."
• Suggesting to archive the sources.

Rest, impeccable sourcing: all sources are reliable, properly/consistently formatted! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: All done, thanks! --PresN 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Dank's comments[edit]

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The (made to order) table coding seems fine. There are no sortable columns.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates appear to be present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine (and cute!)
• 6. It is stable.
• Support - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Next up in a series of lists about general officers commanding British divisions, is those for the 4th Division. It was raised for the first time in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army and was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" - "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army which was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" reads better, I think

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wikilink Napoleonic Wars

  Already linked in the infobox, table, and in the lede: "As the British military grew in size during...". Am I missing somewhere a link should go?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• No column does not sort correctly - if you sort on another column and then sort on No, all the Acting/Temporary/Vacant rows go to the bottom

  Do you have any advice on how to get the table to sort correctly?

• You've got a "vacant" row after Colville, but not after Alexander Campbell, even though the note suggests that the post was vacant for three months

  Good point. Vacant line removed, and expanded upon Colville note to explainEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in Southern Netherlands" => "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in the Southern Netherlands"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Again, no vacant row after the many Inkerman commanders, even though there seems to have been no commander for seven months. Either have vacant rows whenever there was a vacancy or just dispense with them and let the notes deal with it

  I have tweaked the note as Campbell held command (as a temporary appointment) through to the next year.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns, and have left comments and questions above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I see Chris has looked at column one ... I didn't really follow what's going on there, but I'll defer on that.
• In the "Notes" column, you're sorting "The division" under "T" and "A new" under "A". I don't have a problem with this ... I get that it's really not all that important to sort this column correctly. For this reason, the way that columns like these are usually handled at FLC is just to not sort them at all, but maybe this is a picky objection, so it's your call, you can leave it as is if you like.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I'll piggyback on Chris's prose review. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine ... I see there's some disagreement over the license, but I'm not the guy to ask about that.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

List of female chess grandmasters[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is a list of all of the chess grandmasters who have spent the last year being called the "real-life Beth Harmon". Not anyone can be called a "Grandmaster". FIDE formally established the Grandmaster (GM) title in 1950, and not long after, set up formal criteria for how a player can obtain the title. To be awarded the title today, players need to be rated at a GM level, and to have a GM performance at three tournaments. A disproportionate number of featured lists seem to be on various sport topics, but none of them are on chess. Feedback is welcome! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• Lead says that winners of the Women's World Championship have become Grandmasters since "no later than 2003", but the body says this happened "at some point before 2006" – which is it?
  • Fixed. It's 2003. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest moving links in birth date column to references for consistency across all individuals; this also allows the information to source other cells in that row
  • Moved the applications to their own column. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Peak rating links can stay where they are
• Split WWC column into two columns (start and end) – if needed, place "WWC" in a separate row above the two, like so:

WWC
Start	End
1962	1978

• Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Monika Soćko should sort by last name
  • Fixed, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Final row of "By country" table should not be sorted – see Help:Sorting#Excluding final rows from sorting for how to fix this
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest archiving sources using IABot here
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I really like this list – there's a lot of interesting context instead of simply listing the individuals. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of this looks good, but I'm curious as to why the "Title app" column was added. Those links would be better as citations in the existing references column. (Placing them in citations also allows IABot to archive the links.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's useful to keep the applications separate from the other references. Otherwise, it's a lot harder to tell which players have their applications available and which do not. Besides being inline refs, they also have the information on each players' norms, which is directly associated with the information in the table, but wouldn't really fit directly in the table itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

• There are some oddities to the table format. Some rows have refs in the last column, others do not. Some have the date of birth directly link to an external source, others do not, and some have both. Are the xlinks on the DOBs intended to serve as refs? If so, why not just put them in the refs column? Also, I checked the direct xlink on the DOB of Olga Girya and ironically it does not mention her date of birth anywhere, so that element of her row is unsourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, the external links are also intended to serve as refs. RunningTiger123 commented on something similar. I replied there. Also, I added ref's for Girya's DOB and a few others that were missing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• All 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. You have them for the main table, but not the Key table, so you can just change e.g. |Name to !scope=row |Name
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The years listed for the books in refs 6 and 50 differ from the years in the full book cites. Keane & Levy is listed as 1976 in ref 6 and 1970 in the full cite, while Tanner is given as 2016 in ref 50 and the extended cite says it's from 1998. Those should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "After missing a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided" - it was not FIDE that missed the norm, so this should be worded as "After she missed a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided"
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Koneru Humpy (right) was the first to break Judit Polgar's record as the youngest female GM." - she was the only one to break Polgar's record, not the first, as after that it wasn't Polgar's record to break any more
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Judit Polgar's record as the overall youngest GM had only lasted three years" - seems strange to mention this for the first time here and without any context as to exactly when/how she lost the record
  • Moved this part to the previous section and rephrased. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined the Polgar sisters as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title" - not technically accurate, as there are three Polgar sisters, not a pair
  • Rephrased to Susan and Judit Polgar. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "While the number of female Grandmasters has continued to steadily increase, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010" - I don't understand this. The number of new female GMs has both steadily increased and peaked? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
  • Changed to "While there have continued to be more female Grandmasters, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010." Is that clearer? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Surely the peak year was 2008, when there were five awards.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I wasn't thinking about it in terms of a single year, but more like a range of five or six years from 2006 to 2011. The quote from the article is "...by the 1990s women were starting to reach grandmaster level. But by the end of the 2000s, this catching up seems to have plateaued". I didn't want to say it that way because I thought 2000s could be easy to confuse as the century not the decade. I had wrote "around 2010", but I just changed it to "approaching 2010" to better capture that it was towards the end of the decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• "a Soviet chess player from Georgia" — suggesting to link Georgia (country)
  • Generally, we don't link countries in the prose (see MOS:OVERLINK). It is linked in the list itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Even if you leave to link soviet Union, I'll still suggest Georgia to be linked. It is not a very widely known country, and may be confused with the US state of Georgia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Linked to Georgian SSR. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• link "Soviet Union" in the Background section as well.
  • Same as above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "was not considered as she had already been killed in World War II" → "was not considered because of her death during World War II"
  • Changed "as" to "because". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953. These criteria included" → "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953, which included"
  • I think the sentence would be too long (and have too many clauses) if I combine them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Upto you, but I feel that these two sentenced don't flow particularly well, as 'criteria' is being repeated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "No earlier than 1977," → In 1977
  • It's not necessarily 1977. It might have been 1977, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "established herself as the" → "became the"
  • I used "established" because it was something she had to prove over time, not so much a well-defined position. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • We should not be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. To me, 'established' reads bit like news articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Changed to "was". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• "to be competitive against" → "to be compete against"?
  • This doesn't mean the same thing. "competitive" means something "can win against" or "can get good results against", whereas "compete" just means that "she played against" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "The epitome of her success" — according to whom? We'll need attribution as to who considers it her "epitome"
  • The book uses the phrase "zenith of her career". I think this is a widely held opinion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Even if it is a widely held opinion, we should no be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Something like "It is widely believed that the epitome of her success came in 1977 ..." would be better. But, for that, we'll need at-least 2-3 sources supporting that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Added a link to her own interview, and rephrased to "Her most notable tournament result". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Changed this again to "At the 1977 Lone Pine International after about 15 years as Women's World Champion" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• "midst more rule changes that may have made it more difficult for her to obtain the title in the future" — what change did they make in the rules?
  • The source doesn't say. It just says that the impending rule changes played a role. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "and demonstrated that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age." — WP:POV ... we'll need attribution as to whose opinion is this
  • Which part do you think is POV? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The entire part. There are quite a few sentences in this article which have opinion written as facts in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, Polgar sisters winning GM title is a fact, but their success demonstrating "that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age" is an opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to "began fulfilling the requirements for the Grandmaster title from a relatively young age". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• "At the age of 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days" — do we need to be so specific?
  • Switched to month precision. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "the next century saw a substantial influx of new female Grandmasters" — suggesting to rephrase a bit more neutrally
  • Changed "substantial" to "much larger". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their" → "In 2003, FIDE changed their"
  • It's not necessarily 2003. It might have been 2003, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Elo rating system" — pipe 'system' in the link
  • I think this is an issue with the other article. It should really be called just "Elo rating". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Name : Player's name", "Birth date : Player's birth date", "Age : Player's current age", etc. — I'd expect that reader already knows what those terms mean.
  • I agree, but it's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, of all those terms explaining the headers, only "Title date", "Peak rating", and "Title app" need to be explained. That doesn't need a separate table. Those 3/4 headers can have a footnote against them to be more specifically explained. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't agree. You also need to explain that "Federation" is the current one (plus an explanation for the notes), why "Award year" can have a different year than "Title date", that "Title age" is based on the title date and not the award year, and "WWC" wouldn't be clear without explanation (and same for the notes). That's 7/11 that need explanation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• The references in the table should be center aligned
  • Is that a requirement? I don't think it would be consistent with the rest of the table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there is any guideline, but this is a well established precedent among featured lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'll see if anyone else wants to comment on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ref#6 and Ref#50 doesn't point to any citation
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• norms, Elo rating, FIDE rating, performance rating : these terms are linked twice in the prose.
  • These are confusing terms, and I feel like they are important enough that they need to be linked in the sections where the reader needs to understand them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempts made for fixing few of my comments. I stay neutral on promotion of this article as a featured list. There are yet few places where I think the prose should be more neutral. It is a really interesting topic, and thanks a lot for your work here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

• No copyright issues with File:The President, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam presenting Padma Shri to Kumari Koneru Humpy (Chess), at an Investiture Ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi on March 23, 2007.jpg, File:Anna Muzychuk 2011.jpg, File:Tatiana Kosintseva.jpg, File:HouYifan.jpg, or File:Ju Wenjun (2016.09) (cropped) 2.jpg
• When there isn't any evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Sofia, Judit, Susan Polgar sisters.jpg, File:2019-Zhansaya-Abdumalik (cropped).JPG, and File:Arakhamia grant rd6 4thEUIO (A).JPG are in fact the uploaders' own works
• I'm not sure what to say about File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982 (cropped).jpg when that and File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982.jpg just seem to loop back and forth to one another as file sources
  • It's also an uploader's own work, like the ones in the previous point. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • In that case, I wish they said so in the file description SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • It does state the author in the description. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe there's something I missed (I admittedly am a native English speaker who grasps very little of the Russian language without a translator), but the given URL for File:Alexandra Goryachkina Satka 2018.jpg doens't seem to say anything on image licensing
  • It's at the bottom: "CONTENT IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 3.0 LICENSE". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for mentioning this :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• From "21st century", you don't have any citations for "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their regulations and began awarding the GM title to players who win the Women's World Championship if they are not already GMs. Since then, four players have obtained the GM title in this manner, most recently Tan Zhongyi in 2017. The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined Susan and Judit Polgar as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title. Irina Krush was the first player from outside Europe or Asia to be awarded the title in 2013."
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• For more consistency with date formats used within citations, I recommend converting birthdates into DMY format
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Get rid of the flag icons per WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use when they above all else come off as decorative
  • I think it falls under "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • How so? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully my comments are helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• SNUGGUMS, thanks for the review! Replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Sure thing, I just don't see what benefit the flag icons provide. In any case, image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pinging Sportsfan77777 as a reminder to address the icons. If you insist on keeping those, then please elaborate on how exactly they would "aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • If you want to look at the information for all of the players from a specific country in the context of the list as a whole (sorted by a different column), the flags will help you find all of the players from that country. You could sort by federation, but then you lose the context of the rest of the list. You could switch back-and-forth, but I personally find that annoying and easy to lose track of things. Hence, it improves navigation (which in turn helps the reader's comprehension). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Very well. With no other issues found, I support this nomination for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ben&Ben discography[edit]

Nominator(s): GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"God sent those eyes, to get me through the night... and all of the shadows of the past fade into white... when all the memories in my head subside... you remain here... you remain here inside..."

That is an excerpt from "Godsent" by Ben&Ben. Around 6 months ago I got my first boyfriend, and we decided to pick two theme songs. The first is Frank Sinatra's legendary cover of "Fly Me to the Moon", given that we're avgeeks, but then he talked about his favorite Filipino band named Ben&Ben and picked "Godsent" as the second. Since then I've listened to all of Ben&Ben songs, (almost) all of which resonate deeply within me. Even if you don't understand the Tagalog, there is a specific universal appeal to their works.

Out of interest towards the subject, I then started improving the article on 21 December. This is my first time working on discographies, so I read various FL articles on discographies for reference, such as mewithoutYou discography and Regine Velasquez discography. It's a very brief expansion period (6 days), but I've done extensive editing to this and I think that it's suitable for FL. Any comments welcome of course, keep in mind this is written in Philippine English. GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

====Drive-by comment==== You do not use the word "eponymous" correctly in notes such as "Cover version of the eponymous song by Bread". An eponymous song by Bread would be called "Bread", because in the context of music an eponymous release is one where the title is simply the name of the artist (eg this album). TBH, just saying "Cover version of the song by Bread" would be sufficient, I don't think any additional qualifiers are needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out! Done. GeraldWL 03:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Further comments "Appearances" in the infobox should probably be "Soundtrack appearances", as "appearances" is rather vague Sounds reasonable-- done. What's the norm in Phillipines English for whether a band name is treated as singular or plural? In UK English it's plural (eg "Coldplay are") and in US English it's singular (eg "Coldplay is"), but in the lead you mix it up, saying "Ben&Ben have released" (plural) "The band was formed [....] It debuted" (singular) ph-ENG considers collective nouns, including bands, as singular. I've changed the have-s to has. "which they also made a music video on" => "for which they also made a music video" Done. "The Guicos play the role of acoustic guitarists" - "play the role" is an odd choice of words here, as it sounds like they are acting. I would just say "The Guicos both play acoustic guitar" Must be from my deeper familiarity writing film articles smh-- done. "an act it continues to do in the following years and is most known for" => "for which the band has remained well known" Done. "The band was also featured in other artists' songs" => "The band was also featured on other artists' songs" Done. "Later in July" => "In July" Done. "seven songs in Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno" => "seven songs from Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno" Done. "reached Spotify's Top 100 chart; while the rest" - semi-colon should be a comma Changed. "In addition, the band began receiving various accolades starting from 2018 during their rise to fame" => "The band has received various accolades since 2018" Done. "Appearances as soundtracks" => "Appearances on soundtracks" Done. That's what I got on a full first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, thanks for all those comments! Resolved them all. GeraldWL 05:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for most columns, but I see they're missing for the Sales and Certification columns in the first table; I did not check every table.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | rowspan="6" | 2018 becomes !scope=row rowspan="6" | 2018. The last table does not have rowscopes.

PresN-- done all. GeraldWL 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Pass—no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 06:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Salamat! GeraldWL 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14[edit]

Resolved comments from Pseud 14 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to see you take this on and I'm glad you're enjoying their music even more. Personally, my favorites are "Leaves" and "Pagtingin". Thanks for picking up this review! Definitely grateful to learn about their stuff. Excellent favorites; personally I prefer "Pagtingin". GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) on the record labels Sony Music Philippines and Sindikato -- under the record labels.. Done Unlink record labels and music videos Rm-ed record labels. I think the music videos link is fine and not overlink. The band rose to fame in 2018 for incorporating songs – The band achieved recognition in 2018 for... I don't see any purpose in changing that sentence.. It's not the usage of the phrase (personally I use and have read usage of rose to fame or to prominence as well) but rather how it fits in the career timeline of the band as they've been famous or prominent, albeit not mainstream, since they reformed as Ben&Ben between the years 2016 and 2018, but never really got traction until their songs have been featured in film and TV. I guess It would be sound to highlight that they gotten recognized (more) when the latter happened, if that makes sense. Also in the same sentence above, The band .. , for which the band – repetitive Thanks for spotting that! Resolved. The band was also featured on other artists' songs, and also sang one with various artists as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. – think this needs clarification, so as not to sound confusing. “Other artist’s songs” and “sang one with various artists” sound repetitive. Perhaps reword (e.g. The band has collaborated with various artists, and also recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort.) Done In July, it ranked 1 – it ranked 1st Done with Ben&Ben upon popular demand – due to popular demand Mind explaining why this is needed? Just a bit odd or uncommon use. Either "by", "because of" or "due to" popular demand works well with the sentence. In 2021, it was reported that Ben&Ben set a new – In 2021, Ben&Ben set a new record in the folk pop community – folk-pop genre from both locally such as the Awit Awards, as well internationally such as the NME Awards -- this one is a bit awkward, I don’t think the year matters anymore when they started winning awards, perhaps you can word this as: ‘’The band has received various accolades locally and internationally, including the Awit Awards and NME Awards Done all three That's all I have. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Pseud 14, addressed all matters; asked questions in some. GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: I am satisfied with the replies except where I have a response to your questions. Nothing that warrants any issue to hinder this from promotion. I just wanted to clarify points I raised if it seems ambiguous, hopefully it doesn't come across as nitpicky. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Pseud 14, I've implemented the remaining changes now that you've clarified. GeraldWL 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Pseud 14 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99[edit]

I am a fan of Ben&Ben's music actually so would love to comment on this. I'll start with the lead overview.

Damn, I was surprised for a moment because I didn't know you can speak Tagalog. Personally I'm learning... and procrastinating lmao--

• adding Poch Barretto as the electric guitarist -- you can probably omit all "the"s in this list?

Yeah I can see why, it sounds vaguely repetitive. Removed.

• The Guicos are acoustic guitarists. -- Can't this be combined with the paragraph's first sentence?

What do you think of it now?

Still needs parallel structure. Here's what I suggest:

In 2017, Ben&Ben expanded, with the Guicos as acoustic guitarists, and added Poch Barretto as electric guitarist, Jam Villanueva as drummer, Agnes Reoma as bassist, Patricia Lasaten as keyboardist, Toni Muñoz and Andrew de Pano as percussionists, and Keifer Cabugao as violinist.

Sounds clearer actually; done! :)

• for which it has remained well known. -- seems a bit superfluous; instead can't you provide a couple of example films with sources?

I've added them, although I disagree on adding sources since that's covered in the last table.

the quote remains vague (can be interpreted as they remain well-known for achieving recognition in 2018, as opposed to what you're intending)

Rereading, I think the first half of the sentence covers the fame thing well, so I removed that latter bit.

• most notably Young K of Day6 -- omit most

Done.

sorry, now add notably by Young K :D

Done :)

• Later in August, Ben&Ben made cover versions -- covered..

No actually, "cover versions" is the official name; covered is only used in sentences like, say, "Deep Purple covered Bob Marley's "Watching the River Flow"."

okie

• upon fan requests -- "upon request" kind of sounds like this was a live request show... is this accurate? If not, probably choose a different word.

Changed to "due to"

maybe "in response" is better?

Done

• Top 100 chart; while the rest, -- omit "while" if using semi-colon.

Nice catch! Done.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Truflip99, thanks for the comments, some of which I didn't even notice. Looking forward for your other comments in case this is the first batch. GeraldWL 06:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• In 2019, the band released its debut studio album, Limasawa Street. Its second, Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno, was released in 2021. // The band has collaborated with various artists, and also recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. -- try to achieve parallel structure in these too?

I've done parallel for the first two sentences, but can't do one for the last.

How about: The band has collaborated with various artists and has recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. --truflip99 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done

• Tables look good.

I think that's it from me. Apologies for the delay! --truflip99 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Truflip99, responded to your comms above. And hey, it's still not 2012 :) GeraldWL 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like all of my points have been addressed. Good stuff! --truflip99 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the sp! :) GeraldWL 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I can take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will wait for it :) GeraldWL 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Epicgenius, just wanna remind you of this FLC. Or if you can't do a prose-table review, this FLC is in need of a source review. GeraldWL 13:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll review the prose and the tables. But before I do that, I had a question about consistency - why are some of the refs in the "Music videos" section linking to YouTube videos, while others link to news articles? It should preferably either be all news articles or all YouTube videos. I notice that the Rappler sources are trying to embed videos, so I'd instead link to the actual videos. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that! I changed all refs in Music videos to YouTube; I'll archive them tomorrow. GeraldWL 18:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Nkon21[edit]

Discography looks like its in great shape! But there are a few minor things I would adjust:

• In Studio albums, adjust the width of the details column from 18 to 20, so flash drive doesn't take up an extra line
• This can same be done with extended plays, if you happen to want both sections to align.
• Personally, I would expand the width of sales and certs in studio albums so it doesn't look clamped, but that's up to you
• In singles under lead artist, adjust width of title column to 17
• Remove "style="width:10em;" for Year, as its unnecessary
• Add "plainrowheaders" to Appearances on soundtracks

ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21, thanks for this! I've done most, except for number 3, and last, since it's common practice not to have plainrowheaders if the first row is year. GeraldWL 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. In addition, I believe there are usually bullet points in the sales and certification column. I would also remove the abbr. template from the "PARI" in studio albums as the link makes it unable to be seen. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21, hmm... this is my first time in discography articles, but the sales and cert is just one here so I don't think a bullet is needed. The PARI one uses Template:Abbrlink which is a fairy common template, so I don't think there's accessibility issues there. GeraldWL 03:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem now. It should instead be written out as "{{abbrlink|PARI|Philippine Association of the Record Industry}}" per the template documentation, that's why I couldn't see the expanded text when hovering over the wikilink before. After this is adjusted I'll be happy to support! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nkon21 haiyaa I didn't notice that *facepalm*, thanks a lot! Done :) GeraldWL 03:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• That's all from me, Support ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This article contains a list of winners of one of South Korea's music programs Music Bank in 2020. I have been working on this article for almost a year now. It has been copy edited and peer reviewed and I believe that it now meets the featured list criteria. This will be my first FL nomination so I hope to do well on this nomination.

Special thanks to Jonesey95 who copy edited this article and Kavyansh.Singh for participating in the peer review. EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

• Had taken a look at images and ALT text during the peer review. Nothing has changed since then. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

Is there a reason why the title is List of Music Bank Chart winners rather than List of Music Bank Chart number ones? We wouldn't have an article entitled "List of Billboard Hot 100 winners", for example...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I had followed the name of another similar article "List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)". I think it's mainly because the artist gets a trophy if their song is number one on the chart. EN-Jungwon 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

====Further comments==== "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, Naver Vibe and Soribada. Starting in November, Soribada was replaced by Flo" - this doesn't seem quite right, as the first bit is in the present tense but includes Soribada, which you then go on to say is no longer used. Maybe try "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from a number of services including Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo." Replaced with "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo." "despite the lack of promotional activities on music programs." - source? Removed. "Red Velvet's sub-unit Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi received their first music show win" - source for it being their first? Done. "Girl group (G)I-dle received their first Music Bank trophy" - source for it being their first? Done. "NCT's sub-units NCT Dream and NCT U won their first Music Bank award" - awards should be plural, also sources for them being their first? Removed as I could not find any sources, but checking back the the list of winners from the previos years confirms that this is their first wins on this show. "SF9 (top) and NCT Dream (bottom) received their first broadcast channel music show wins" - source? Source added for SF9. Removed NCT Dream per above. "Zico of Block B (left) and Hwasa of Mamamoo (right) received their first Music Bank awards" - source? Source added for Zico. Removed Hwasa. I'm a bit confused by the August 7/14 situation. You say that episode 1040 was actually broadcast on August 14, but then you list a separate winner on the row below which you say was announced on the website. So were two winners announced for August 14? And no winner for August 7? All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Regarding the August 7 14 situation. The episode 1040 was recorded on August 7 but due to some scheduling conflict it was broadcasted a week later on August 14. So during the show on August 14 the winner of August 7 was announced and the winner of August 14 was announced on their website later that day. I hope this made it a bit clear. EN-Jungwon 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude I have implemented the changes that you have requested. Thank you for reviewing this article. Happy editing and merry christmas. EN-Jungwon 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kajol[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Kajol is one of the most popular Indian actress in the 1990s. I am nominating the list because I think it covers completely all awards she received during her career. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• The main thing that jumps out at me is that the "lots and lots of little tables" format for awards lists has been deprecated for a long time. The awards should all be in one table like List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• "one Stardust Awards." => "one Stardust Award."
• "After made her debut" => "After making her debut"
• "Kajol was honoured with Karamveer Puraskar" - no context as to what this is. Can you explain?
• As the table is sortable, anything linked needs to be linked every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You haven't linked the categories each time they appear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I forgot that, done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

• "Kajol received critical acclaim and the Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress for playing a granddaughter in Udhaar Ki Zindagi (1994)" - surely you can be a little more descriptive when writing about her role than "playing a granddaughter".
• "In 1998, she was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost." The films were released in 1998. She was nominated the next year. How about "Kajol was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for her 1998 films: Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost"?
• "Her performance as a twin in Dushman also won her a first Screen Award for Best Actress" - she did not play "a" twin only. It's only logical that both of the roles (twin sisters) were played by her.
• In the table of content, you don't have to list every alphabet but only the ones that start with the names of the awards she has received.

This looks otherwise good. FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Spokane[edit]

Nominator(s): T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and is of similar quality to other featured lists in this category. I believe this list provides a brief but good overview of high rise development in this midsize western city, is comprehensive, and provides relevant notes and hyperlinks for the buildings that would be of interest to the readers of the article. The article is well organized and visually looks good; people took the time to take decent photographs of the skyline and buildings to illustrate the article as well as to mapping the GPS coordinates of all the buildings in the list. Aside from the Albuquerque tallest buildings list, there are no other featured lists from midsized American cities and I hope to increase the representation in this category with this nomination. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Two quick notes: The first sentence should not use "This is a list of X" per MOS:FIRST, and the "citation needed" tags need to be resolved. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Ok, I’ll rephrase that first sentence. I thought most of these lists started with that exact phrase like the Albuquerque one does. In regard to the citation needed tags, if you look in the edit summaries, you can see the struggles in trying to find verification for the buildings pre-1910 US Bank Building. That’s the one glaring issue that I was trying to resolve before nominating but I was unable to after shelving work on this last bit and revisiting every once in a while over the last couple months, then looking through websites again and searching Google news archives. It’s a dead end, the knowledge may be lost to time or not well documented enough to include in the articles that delve into the topic. I know that on this website, if it can’t be verified, it basically doesn’t exist. I was hoping that this isn’t the first time this has happened and there’s a way to deal with a situation like this. Maybe someone has access to other news archives to get a source for those older buildings, or maybe we reduce the article scope and omit pre modern high rise buildings (US Bank) or raise the starting height for list inclusion, or we delete the entire tallest buildings timeline and any references to pre 1910 structures. Let me know what you think we can do to address this. Thanks for your help T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC) I've done a little bit of searching, and I found this page from the Spokane Historical Society (affiliated with Eastern Washington University) that mentions the Review Building was the tallest in Spokane, but only for 10 years. There's either some serious rounding going on there, or there was another building that needs to be fit into the timeline. All things considered, I'd like to include this section, but if there aren't more sources to complete the list, it should be removed – WP:V must be followed per the featured list criteria, and unsourced information fails that. I'll try searching the Wikipedia Library for some more sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC) The Google Newspapers archive also seems to have a good number of Spokane papers from that time; maybe one of those could help? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC) That's kind of you Tiger, thanks for the help. Yes, I saw that tidbit in that Spokane Historical reference and that's why we can be pretty sure the cathedral didn't hold the tallest building title at least immediately after the Review Building; it's very frustrating that the author didn't mention what came after the Review Building. There's no real rounding, just placeholder speculation at this time. I actually e-mailed a journalist at The Spokesman-Review that wrote one of the articles referenced in the List but they haven't gotten back to me. I know if its not verified it can't be on there, I was just hanging on to hope of salvaging the section. I've tried searching in the Google news archives about the Review Building and the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lourdes and its tough sledding. I've seen people use newspaperarchive.com but you have to pay to use it. It seems like you have to be a trained journalist or historian to have the resources and know how to find this kind of information if it isn't readily available on the internet somewhere. Unfortunately, I think the section will have to be deleted which is unfortunate because I bet in most places this sort of thing is well documented. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC) One last thing you could try is asking someone with access to Newspapers.com to carry out a search (maybe through Wikipedia:Reference desk). It's part of the Wikipedia Library, but access is limited and I don't currently have access; otherwise, I'd check myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC) I wish I knew someone. I didn't think the journalist I contacted would get back to some random person like me so I just deleted the section, which reduces the usefulness of the article and makes it look much less interesting. I liked the section with the cool historic picture and all but without complete knowledge of the situation, I don't think we can have an incomplete chronological list with a gap in it. I didn't notice before, but Spokane Historical has an e-mail that I used to see if they could fill in that crucial 10 year blind spot in the history by indicating what came after the Review Building in the Review Tower article and before the Old National Bank Building in that article so the reader can get more context, I bet it's a single mystery building.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the timeline of tallest buildings has been removed for the time being, here's my full review. Images need alt text Fixed (edit conflict) Often, if the caption is a straightforward description of the image (i.e., "Skyline of Spokane" as opposed to "Spokane has X high-rise buildings"), the alt text can either duplicate the caption or be something along the lines of "see caption". Strictly speaking, the alt text could be omitted in those cases per MOS:ALT, but I think it's better just to include it in every case. Why is "low-rise" hyphenated when "high rise" isn't? Don't know. Fixed! No reason to capitalize "The" in "the Great Fire of 1889" Fixed! Remove <br /> after GeoGroupTemplate Fixed! Suggest moving citations to a dedicated "Ref." column Working on it. I am looking into how to do this. You should be able to simply create a new cell in each row, just like every other cell. Oh, I misunderstood what you were looking for, I thought you were talking about this -->Template:Ref. I'll get working on making a column just for the references. Update: Fixed! Each row in the table (aside from the headers) needs a cell with !scope="row", and the table as a whole needs a caption (which can be hidden using Template:Sronly) – see WP:DTT for more My suggestion would be to make the "Name" cells the row headers, but "Rank" is also a good option Finally fixed I think: I hope I did it right... Update: Made the first cell under the Rank column a different color using the !scope="row" code. Looks like the Portland table now except they did it a little differently by changing the color. All year ranges should use en dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-) – for example, "1910–1929" instead of "1910-1929" Fixed! Think I got all of them. Suggest running IABot to archive sources Question: Ive never requested a bot before. How is that done? Do I just contact Cyberpower678 or Harej? Sorry, the link isn't immediately clear from that page. You should be able to use this link to run it (it should ask for some permissions if you haven't used it before). Fixed! First time for everything. I ran the bot and had all the sources archived in case they go dead in the future. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @RunningTiger123, I know you’re pretty busy right now but the next time you have a moment could you check back with us to see if your concerns have been addressed? It’s been a while since we've heard from you. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay – forgot about this over the holidays. Everything looks good, and I'm happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments[edit]

• Names that start with "The" should sort based on the next word in the name

I deleted "The" from the building names

• Some rows have references which are not in correct numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comments[edit]

• "The Old National Bank Building was also the tallest building in the state upon completion" - is the "also" meant to indicate that it was also the tallest building in the city? If so, actually say that

Fixed! Clarified sentence in the Lead and the similar row note. Replaced Old National Bank Building with the modern name so people dont get confused.

• Also, when was this?

Fixed! Added date.

• Some buildings are wikilinked in the lead but others are not. Do the unlinked ones not have articles? Surely they are notable?

Fixed! Added link to the Review Building article which I didnt know existed. I dont think there is one on the Bank of America building.

• "and has held the tallest building in the city title for 40 years" - given that you already mentioned that it is the current tallest building and was built in 1981, these words are redundant

I see what you mean. I took out the redundant info but kept the age calculation. I think it is useful for readers to just tell people exactly how long ago that was so they can relax and not do math.

• "This list ranks Spokane high rises that stand at least 145 feet (44 m) tall" - just out of interest, what was the thought process behind this seemingly very random cut-off point?

Mainly notability concerns. The threshold was to try to trim the list to a around 25-30 buildings like the articles I was using as a model-mainly the List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon featured list articles. I was thinking about using a nice round number like 150 feet but I thought that would make the list a bit too short at 21. The list at one point contained 38 buildings which included buildings like the Lincoln Plaza/Building at an Emporis estimated height of only 104 feet and is described on their website as a "low rise". Other similar articles have a threshold to keep the list at a manageable length because there are too many tall buildings, but this article has one because there are too few tall buildings. I know everyone has a different perspective on what "tall" is but 104 feet isn't it for most people and wouldn't be even close to ranking in similar list articles except the Albuquerque one. This town doesn't have many tall buildings and the list size at this time reflects that. I felt listing more would be scraping the bottom in terms of notability.

• "Tallest building in Spokane since its completion in 1981." - this is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop. This applies to many of the notes.

Fixed! Deleted all the periods in the notes section.

• The huge whitespace between the note and the references in many cells looks odd

What do you advise be done with them? The ones that look odd and unappealing are the ones with a larger/landscape? picture making a bigger gap between the note lines. Should I get rid of the breaks? I'm probably over complicating things but I thought listing the references on a different line in the notes on rows that have them will make people understand that the references are for the row entry as a whole and not just a particular note.

• In the "in popular culture" section, you switch between describing the events of the episode in the present and then in the past tense

Fixed!

• Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop

Fixed!

• That's what I got other than the "this list...." opening, which still needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed I think: Switched "list" to "article" in the Lead and in the Tallest buildings section I switched out "list" for "table". Does that work?

No, you need to re-write the opening to eliminate anything like "This article contains XYZ" altogether. No article (be it a list or otherwise) should start like that (see MOS:FIRST) - we wouldn't start the article on Spokane itself, for example, with "This article is about Spokane". The Albuquerque list you mention above was promoted more than 13 years ago when standards were very different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. I deleted the first sentence entirely and the description of the table. Thanks for the clarification. :) 2001:5B0:4FC0:90A8:710A:ECF3:6FA4:EDF2 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm being unbelievably dumb, I can still see a first sentence of "This article ranks the tallest buildings in the U.S. city of Spokane, Washington by height"?? That needs to go and be replaced by a brief intro to what Spokane is i.e. just a couple of sentences along the lines of Spokane is a city in the US state of Washington, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Youre not hallucinating, I accidentally reverted the fix after I messed up doing the row headers and reverted to back to before I took out the sentence. It has been taken out again.

One last point (I think) from me - where you say "located in eastern Washington", I would rephrase that to "located in the east of the US state of Washington". Not every reader is in the US so this will make it clear what country we are actually talking about here (there's also a Washington in the UK and potentially other countries too), and also (once we have established that it's the US) will make it clear that we are talking about the state, because to probably 99% of non-Americans, if you said "it's in Washington", the first thought would be that you were talking about Washington DC. Oh, and wikilink Washington -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Good point, never thought about that. Ill make those changes. Thanks for the advice Chris :)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

This article looks pretty good for FL, and I only have a few comments.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

* In "Cityscape", the caption should not end with a period as it's not a full sentence (or at least, that's what I'm taught at this FLC of mine). For the "References" column, use Template:Refh instead of "References" per consistency with other FLs. Im going to read up on how to make this happen and try to find some examples. It's late in the day where Im at and Im not good with working on the tables. Thank you for your suggestions and comments Gerald! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I've put it for you there-- it's pretty common in fls-- and no problem! GeraldWL 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I see that for the refs publishers, you only link the first mention. Ref 4 must have The Spokesman-Review in the

• Support --GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Rank becomes !scope=col | Rank.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed I think! Thanks for the suggestions PresN :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their help with improving this article and their patience in dealing with a first time FL nominator that is bad with the table markup. If anyone has any other improvements, I’m all ears. As for me, I ran out of ideas as of now but I am still trying to think of stuff I can add to it. I’m going to keep digging for sources to see if I can fill the 10-year gap in that deleted tallest building timeline and in the future, I think I’ll add a Tallest under construction list like you see in similar articles where we can list buildings that will make the list in the soon. At the moment, I don’t think there are any but there are some residential towers that reportedly will be under construction in the next year or so. Thanks again all! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The list likely needs to be moved to List of tallest buildings in Spokane, Washington to match its parent article and comply with naming guidelines for U.S. cities. Otherwise, it looks great, though the opening prose is a bit too crufty. SounderBruce 04:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Was wondering about that myself but I saw the Albuquerque one didn’t have a state either and then didn’t think much of it. It's a little hit and miss with the naming conventions on similar articles. Little Rock, Knoxville, Grand Rapids, and El Paso are also somewhat obscure cities missing the state. I’m all for changing the name and didn’t know I had permissions do do something like that. I’ll read up on wiki guides on how to do it and change the page name to "List of tallest buildings in Spokane, Washington".

Update: The page has a new name. Thanks a bunch for shedding light on the naming conventions.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Article looks good but here are a few comments:

• I don't think there should be a section called "tallest under construction" as it is just an empty table. Suggest removing this section. Any new building that is constructed can go directly to the main list.

Fixed, I have taken the recent addition out. Most articles of this type have a list of the under construction buildings, so I thought it would almost be expected by others and I thought the article needed a secondary list in lieu of having to delete the Tallest buildings timeline because the history isnt well documented enough.

• The two sentences "If two or more buildings are of the same height, they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be notes for their respective columns, not in the lead paragraph for this section, since they are about the list, not the contents of the list.

Fixed. Good point.

• I also don't think the notes column is very useful, it's mostly blank. You could add a sentence to the lead paragraph just above the table that says "The tallest buidling from 1929-1981 was...." That would be way more useful and convenient for users than a mostly empty column, the only other notes are a few pieces of trivia, that can be added as "notes" if you really want, but they are not super informative anyway. The note on the review building would fit nicely in the article lead in the sentence on the review building. Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking I'll probably change this.I could go either way on this, but I think I'll break with convention and take out the Notes column and tack on any notes and associated references as a edn note like you suggest. Should mention every other similar list that I've seen has a mostly blank note column, which I dont see as a problem since it does keep the relevant information visually close to the subject matter, but I do think it takes away from the article aesthetically and looks odd and limits the possible length of any note. Thanks for the food for thought Matt T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I made the change and I like the way it looks. I took out the date ranges for the tallest buildings notes since the pre-1910 history is incomplete and sketchy and the 1910-present history is already talked about at the end of the Lead. Thanks for the great suggestions T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow this actually looks a lot better. My only suggestion is after the sentence "does not include antenna masts." You can add a sentence or two stating "The tallest building in Spokane from x-x was x building and from x-present was x building" or something like that, just to highlight some important information from the table. Otherwise I do like this list. Note C should probably have a citation as well. But apart from these two, I will support. Nice work on this list! Mattximus (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Added an inline to the Emporis existing buildings general reference at the end of former Note C, which is now Note D since I added another factoid note. Also wrote down in prose the known information from the tallest buildings timeline list, that was deleted because the history between 1900-1910 seems to be not well documented and convoluted. Thanks again for the great suggestionsT85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• Citation 1 should link to Washington State Employment Security Department and use the appropriate name.

Fixed

• Citation 2 is a promotional piece by the local chamber and should be replaced with a more reputable source.

Fixed. Deleted it; that basic info is in the first citation.

• I'd rather see Citation 5 replaced with a more specific source that pertains to Spokane. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to check the Spokesman-Review archives on Newspapers.com?

Fixed. Referenced another Spokane Historical article.

• Citation 7 has stray brackets at the end. It should also use "Spokane Historical" as the publication name, rather than a publisher.

Fixed I think? Deleted extra brackets. I need clarification to fix the second issue. I thought the publication name and publisher were the same thing, Spokane Historical. If you are talking about the "others" in the reference, that is just meant to convey to readers that the website is a public history project of Eastern Washington University.

• Spokesman-Review is overlinked in citation 8

Fixed

• Some of the Emporis/SkyscraperPage citations could be cut down; are all of them being used to cite information that is not found in the other?

Like most similar articles, I included as a reference all of the typical websites for each listing that has basic building information such as height, mainly Emporis, SkyscraperPage, and CTBUH. I personally think that more information is better and I don't think there is a real pressing need to start deleting references. People can look through each one if they are interested or if they prefer one website over the others and it provides additional verification without harming anything. I strongly believe the references should stay.

Just a few comments, will do a spotcheck later. SounderBruce 08:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks a bunch! :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

List of commanders of the British 3rd Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Another list of British commanders, this time for the 3rd Division. This formation was initially raised in 1809, and has since been raised and disbanded on several occasions. During this time period, it has had 67 permanent commanders (including several temporary and acting commanders, who are also listed), with the most recent being appointed in 2021. This list used the previously promoted (FL) List of commanders of the British 2nd Division as a basis, so hopefully everything meets muster.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

• The only image in the article is appropriately licenced, and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "In addition to directing the tactical battle the division is involved in" - "In addition to directing the tactical battle in which the division is involved"
• "As of 18 October 2021" - that was nearly two months ago. Maybe just say "As of late 2021" rather than being as specific as a single day? Or just note the date since when he has been in charge?
• "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, which he took command of." => "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, of which he took command."
• "When Picton returned to the peninsular" => "When Picton returned to the peninsula"
• "On returning to the peninsular" => "On returning to the peninsula"
• "Kielmansegg took" - different spelling to the name column
• "Ten days after taking command, Mackenzie was invalided back to the UK on 29 October 1914." - yet it says he was appointed on the 15th?
• "As the 3rd Canadian Division would be working in close proxmitity" - typo on last word
• Ah I now understand why the lead says "As of 18 October 2021". My earlier point stands :-)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments and review. I have worked through to address the various concerns that you raised (as for the ten-day comment, must have been a brain fart on my behalf!)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

* "Picton, the commanding officer of the 3rd Division, for the majority of the Peninsular War" → "Thomas Picton, the commanding officer of the 3rd Division for the majority of the Peninsular War" Also wikilink Thomas Picton in that caption "The 3rd Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which was first formed in 1809." → "The 3rd Division was an infantry division of the British Army and was first formed in 1809." (current sentence implies British Army wasn't formed until 1809) "20th Century" → "20th century" and "21st Century" → "21st century" Table should probably have sorting capabilities for "No.", "Appointment date", "Rank", and "General officer commanding" (be sure to sort the last one by last name) "Alten resumed command of the division once combat ended" can end with a period Same for "During this period, no one held the title of divisional commander"; "The division was evacuated via Dunkirk to the UK, following the Allied defeat in the Battle of France"; "In February 1964, the division HQ was temporarily deployed to Cyprus"; and "By this point, the division was also known as the 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division" Why is the note "The division was disbanded in Germany, on 1 December 1992" included for Wallace when Pike was the commander at that point? — RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your comments and review. I have also tried to address all of your concerns (re the disbanding issue, I think that may have been a copy and paste error? I have updated, after re-reviewing the sources).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting about this for so long; more than happy to support this list for promotion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Washington ballot measures[edit]

Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on it for a while and, after implementing some feedback from Reywas92 (talk · contribs) and SounderBruce (talk · contribs), I think it's ready for some more eyes on it. The list collects every ballot measure since Washington joined the union, everything is sourced directly to the results or to reliable secondary sources, and the previous formatting and inline citation issues with the list have been resolved. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Measure Name becomes !scope=col | Measure Name.
• 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. |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16 becomes !scope=row |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;Drive-by comments No article should start with "This is a list...." Find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence Done - Does that look any better? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC) I personally think that, rather than having lots and lots of tables, some of which are tiny, it would look better if they were all merged into one table, with the year as a column I remember considering this when I started, but I was concerned that with a very long table, readability/navigation might be impacted. I may wait to see if others have input there before making a bigger change like that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) With just one or two exceptions, the descriptions are not full sentences so should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Done (I think, although it's been a while since I've had a formal English class) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

• There are no images in this list-article (except the sidebar image). Is there nothing more relevant image to add? I found File:Seattle - Transportation ballot measure campaign literature, 1937.jpg. Will that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It could, but that's a local proposition and not a larger ballot measure. I'll look around, and, if need be, can probably upload something. I could add more generic images next to the more historic ballot measures, maybe? Photo of a women's suffrage rally next to the initiative that granted them the right to vote? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The image (File:Washington Equal Suffrage Association put up posters in Seattle in 1910.jpg) looks great! Thats fine, pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Kavyansh (and thanks for tweaking the image settings, I'm not used to all the options there). What do you think about this image, of people celebrating after Ref 74 passed? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Licence wise, its good. No issues if you add it, as long as it doesn't clutter any table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;Further comments Washington is linked on the second mention rather than the first. I'd also be tempted to put "The US state of Washington" to avoid confusion with Washington DC Done - I had linked on the second because I thought it would look weird to have the first word be a wikilink, but with the phrasing change it looks much more natural. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "approved by a majority of the people next general election" - think there are some words missing here Changed to "approved by a majority of voters in the next general election." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become" Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "17 of his initiatives have made it" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with digits? Changed to "He has had 17 initiatives be placed on the ballot as of 2021." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment legalizing and defining the state's power to use eminent domain" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "eminent domain"? I for one have absolutely no idea wat it is...... Wikilinked (it's the right of the government to seize private property, usually to make room for highways and the like). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment requiring all voters be taxpayers" => "An amendment requiring that all voters be taxpayers" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "creating distinct areas for trolling" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "trolling", as in this context I presume it doesn't mean being rude to people on the internet :-) Wikilinked (should've caught that earlier, it's a very boring method of fishing) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) That's what I got as far as 1948, I will look at the rest later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Thanks Chris! I know this one gets pretty boring with how mundane so many of these measures are :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) More comments "A measure to ban television advertising of alcoholic beverages between 8 AM and 10 PM" - isn't it more normal to write 8:00am? Fixed - I'd always written time that way but I checked MOS and you're right. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "allowing them to sell spirituous liquor" - is "spirituous" a word? Changed (it is a word but it's synonymous with "alcoholic") ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "An amendment replacing the 40 mill property tax limit" - what does "40 mill" mean? $40 million? Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "This measure was one of two options - The other option exempted some hazardous waste from taxation" - don't think "the" should be capitalised there as it's all one sentence (this one also does need a full stop at the end). Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) That's what I got as far as 1999 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

A fascinating list which has clearly taken a lot of effort. Few comments below:

• The US state of Washington — Can link U.S. state
• This section also required that details of the amendment should be published in newspapers across the state before election day. — uncited?
• 8% of the votes in the lead v. at least eight percent of the voting population (emphasis mine)
• Link Oregon
• In the time since this amendment's passage, initiatives and referendums have become a prominent piece of Washington's electoral landscape. — uncited?
• In 1910 the people → "In 1910, people"
• making it the fifth state → "making Washington the fifth state"
• Of those, only two have not since been overturned by the courts. — that means rest all are overturned?
• Initiatives to the People are placed — why is P capitalized? Is "Initiatives to the People" a formal term. Same goes with "Initiatives to the Legislature"
• They require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature before being placed on the ballot. — uncited?
• 193,,686 — typo?
• 180179 — no comma?
• 574, 856 —Initiative to the People 49 extra space?
• office of Governor — MOS:JOBTITLE says G shouldn't be capitalized. Check for all other instances.
• $40,000,000 — will Template:Inflation be useful here?
• in Grant, Adams, Chelan, and Douglas counties — do we have links for these counties
• Side note: Initiative to the People 49 did not pass!
• Production — why is P capitalized?
• In these sortable tables, every thing which deserves a link should be linked every single time. WP:OL doesn't apply.
• mounts to $1000 — missing a comma
• Department of Social Security — do we have a link?
• between 8:00am and 10 pm — why '8:00' but not '10:00'? Why no space between '8:00' and am? Also, add a non-breaking space
• Daylight Savings Time — why capitalised?
• What is the difference between "Initiative to the People 193" and "Initiative to the People 210"
• More to come

Thanks for all this! I'm making notes of a lot of these things so that I don't run into them again in future articles. I fixed most of these, with a couple notes. With Tim Eyman, yes, his others have all been overturned or partially overturned by the courts. I switched the phrasing there to "overturned or modified," which should be clearer. As far as "Initiatives to the People" and "Legislature" goes, I couldn't find any formal guidance, but they are capitalized everywhere I could find on the state elections website. There might be some minor phrasing differences between 193 and 210, but if there were they weren't significant enough to change the description on the ballot - oftentimes the same measure appears in several different elections before passing or being abandoned. On the inflation template, I added that to measures that talk about taxation and budget allocations, not the very small amounts relating to people's pensions and salaries - let me know if you want me to add it there too! And I remember chuckling about Initiative to the People 49 for a while when I added that section! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuing:

• I'd link Native Americans

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• the Supreme Court — mention that it is Washington's supreme court, not SCOTUS.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 2,000 acres — can we use template:convert?

Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• delegated to the Federal Reserve in the United States Supreme Court — 'United States Supreme Court' is mentioned, but 'Supreme Court' is linked to Washington Supreme Court

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Add a short description to the page.

Added, although I think the page title is descriptive enough, hence why I had it set to "none" ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support — Clearly an excellent list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "A measure requiring long-term care works receive background checks" - presumably that should be workers rather than works?
• Wikilink GMOs?
• "A measure authorizing courts to remove individual's access to firearms" => "A measure authorizing courts to remove individuals' access to firearms"
• Notes B and F should not have full stops
• Think that's me finally done :-) I'll wait and see what other people think about merging the little tables into larger ones, either by decade/era or overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• Should include that initiatives to people have six months to collect signatures but to the legislature has ~ten. And referendums just ~three months after the legislative session.
• Referendums require 4% signatures not 8 like the others (per Senate Joint Resolution 4)
• Perhaps there can be some info about campaign finance and the need for paid signature gatherers.
• "placed on the ballot by the legislature in order to gauge public interest" implies that it's nonbinding, but it would in fact adopt into law
• I don't think the Ref 74 photo is very illustrative of the topic, the focus is on the street sign and you just see people sitting.
• A second instance of daylight saving time should be fixed.
• Template:Elections in Washington (state) sidebar/Category:Washington (state) ballot measures links a handful of measures that have articles; these should all be linked in the relevant tables.
• I-776 and 747 were also overturned by the supreme court. Might be others as well.
• House Joint Resolution 6: capitalize Supreme Court, link to Washington Supreme Court
• Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8210: specify that chief justice would be elected by members of the court not the public as I'd interpret that. It also allowed for reduction of the court's size but didn't require it.

Thanks again for your improvements to this unique list! Reywas92^Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Reywas92 - I believe I've fixed everything except the Ref 74 photo as I personally think the photo fits, but if anybody else has an issue with it I'll remove it. I added a paragraph talking about paid signature gathering but I'm not sure if there's anything unique to ballot measures to discuss for general campaign finance, other than the general criticisms that get applied to every electoral process. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think something like this would be more illustrative than a street sign. Otherwise support and any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

I'll try to take a look – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources.
• In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
• What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS? The particular piece used ([2]) has been authored by David Wilma and Kit Oldham. Are they both subject matter expert; they don't have Wikipedia articles, I guess.
  • I'm really confused why HistoryLink is being questioned, it's a well established and respected resource with comprehensive historical coverage of the state. Both authors are published historians (one being an editor) and this page even has nine sources itself! Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I did not say that it is not reliable. I asked if the authors are "subject matter expert". As you say, if they are, I'm fine with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
• "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
• "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
• Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
  • That blanket statement is wrong. Blogs are just not necessarily RS when self-published by an unreliable author. Of course the Secretary of State is a reliable source when publishing things on its own website about things the Office oversees, and its presentation format is irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. It being published by SOS satisfies that it "reliable" publication, but that does not necessarily make it RS. Do we know who the author(s) is/are, and are they "subject-matter expert" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

      It literally says the author is "Secretary Of State's Office" so yes I would expect whichever employee wrote this on behalf of and with oversight of the office is an expert at their own job and what the office does, just as any other content (likewise unsigned) on the site would be reliable. I do not think that name should even redirect to this section because nowadays many organizations and public agencies use the blog post format to publish information, but they are not self-published sources in the sense of an individual publishing it alone like a blogspot page. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
• There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
• Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
  • Huh? Why wouldn't it be??? Crosscut.com is the premier nonprofit news site in Washington, affiliated with the local PBS affiliate, with many highly respected reporters and editors. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I asked "what makes it a WP:RS?", and am satisfied with your rationale. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
  • Just because a blog is a format that any random person can publish on a variety of websites doesn't mean that the concept of organizations posting pieces as a web log is suspect. The WPC clearly takes responsibility for the articles its employees write in this part of the site. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:BLOGS states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Can we verify if the author, Mariya Frost, is an "established subject-matter expert". Are there better sources available which can be used in place of this? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • This isn't self-published by Frost, it's published by the WRC. This section doesn't apply to the concept of blogs in general even if that's the shortcut name: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert doesn't apply here. They do think she's enough of an expert to be their transportation director, but yes their ideological bent makes them suboptimal though, even as this is an anodyne statement to source. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Yeah; I'll still say if a better source is available, better use it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
• Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169
  • It's an opinion of the Washington State Supreme Court, why wouldn't it be reliable? Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, didn't clearly noticed that. I am not questioning the opinion of Washington State Supreme Court, was a bit confused by seeing "MRSC" as website. It should be written as Municipal Research and Services Center, the way our Wikipedia article writes it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats mostly it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Reywas92, few responses above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite honestly, Reywas, we are selecting featured lists, which "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". I agree that our criteria about sources is not that strong, but I think if there are better sources available, one should prefer them. And as the source reviewer in this case, I think I should ask about it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Logging that I have seen this, but am busy this weekend with a Wikimedia UK training event and an assessment deadline that I've been putting off. I will try and reply to everything by Tuesday. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

* Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources

I mean, this is just where the results are published. For something like election results I would much rather cite the actual results than a news article about them (and for ballot measures it's rare for them all to be reported on at the same time anyway), so this just streamlines the process a lot. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?

The cite web automatically italicizes it as the name of the website. It doesn't italicize it when it's listed as a publisher in the cite book template. Presumably it is getting the proper format. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS?

It's staffed and written by professional historians in Washington State and is chaired by a range of education, history, and museum professionals. Both Wilma and Oldham have published several books on Washington State history. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.

Fixed - Thanks for pointing that out. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "in American English" — why is this important to mention?

I don't see where this is? I searched the page for those words and could not find that appearing anywhere. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"

This was a byproduct of only working on this page intermittently for a couple of years. They should all be fixed now (I opted for "Month DD, YYYY"). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks better now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS

Deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs) here - It's an official publication of the Secretary of State's office, not some rando. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?

Again deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs), it's an established news agency that meets WP:NEWSORG ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.

Looking at Reywas92 (talk · contribs) again, the format is sort of irrelevant because it's not random people, it's an official publication of an established think tank. WPC is as biased as any think tank, but I don't see any indication that they're not reliable. They're not being used to make a contentious statement, just a statement of fact (that Eyman's initiatives have mostly been overturned). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169

'Fixed sentence case ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think that's everything! Let me know if I missed something, @Kavyansh.Singh: ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking good! As a great Wikipedian once said: "In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account [...] and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion." Passing the source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors[edit]

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk), Avilich (talk) and Tintero21 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced, comprehensive and clearly presents the information it is supposed to. This list has been the subject of five past failed featured list nominations but the last one was in 2008, 13 years ago. The main criticisms in the past have been format issues, lack of clarity and very few references. All of these issues have in my mind been sorted in the present version. The present version has clear references for every entry as well as a clear and referenced set of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTCRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The lead has no references at all

Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as . I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.

I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)

This has the side-effect of making all the text in the cell bold and making the background darker. Is there a way to add row scopes while avoiding this effect? I can't get it to work properly with the rows that already are darker in color either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you change the table's "class" from {| class="wikitable" to {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" it should prevent the style change. --PresN 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.

Added alt text to all images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

• Taking this up. User:Iazyges (User talk:Iazyges)
• No objection to inclusion of any sources, will pass once issues are dealt with.

Missing bibliography

• Mathisen 1998 (citation 28) is missing a bibliography
• Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46) (citation 91) Watson 1999 lacks a bibliography.
• Kaegi 2003, p. 194. (citation 157) lacks a bibliography

Misc

• Kent, J. P. C. (1959) is not used by any citation.
• Standardize usage of location.

Titles needing translation

• Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil give translate title
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) translate title
• Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) translate title.
• Estiot, Sylviane (1996) translate title
• Hartmann, Udo (2002) translate title
• Rea, J. R. (1972)
• Seibt, Werner (2018)
• Stein, Arthur (1924

Notes

• Hammond 1957 (citation 48) breaks when 1957 is included (it is manually cited to just Hammond with a ref= parameter), so I've removed the date from the cite.

  Same with Schreiner, pp. 157–159. (citation 209)

• Cameron 1988 was given date of 1998 in bibliography incorrectly (citation was correct 1988 date); I've corrected it.
• Schreiner, Peter (1977) and Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) ISBNs were swapped, now fixed.
• Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016) the google book link gives publisher as Springer, WorldCat only gives multiple Palgrave Macmillan, not sure why this is the case.

Palgrave Macmillan is a subsidiary of Springer so that's probably why. In any event, previewing the book itself on Google Books and scrolling down shows that the book itself uses "Palgrave Macmillan" so I think that's what's best to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges I've added the missing bibliography, it looks to me that you yourself and Tintero21 handled the other issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "absence of constitutional criterias" - criteria is already a plural word so shouldn't have an S added
• "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and ruled undisputed" => "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed"
• What's with the bar (for want of a better term) under Geta's entry (and in other places)?
• "Brother of (more likely) half-brother of Tacitus" - think this should be "Brother or, more likely, half-brother of Tacitus"
• "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III' death" => "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III's death"
• "revolted against Michael VII on 2 July/October 1077" - what does this mean (the date)?
• "it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard as emperors only those who actually ruled" - can lose one of those "only"s
• I think that's all I got - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  The "bars" are meant to distinguish non-dynastic emperors. Maybe we should explain it somewhere, probably on "List structure" or in note. The alternative would be to make many more tables, even if they only have one emperor (like in the List of English monarchs). IMO it looks clean the way it is. About the 2 July/October question (I edited that section), it's mean to be “2 July or 2 October”. Tintero21 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Should be all of these addressed. I've followed Tintero21's suggestion and added to the "List structure" section for what the bars represent - I don't think there is a cleaner way to represent dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Lede

• The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire dating from the granting of the title Augustus to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC,[1][2] after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar. "dating from" lends itself better to a "start-end" structure which this sentence lacks, finishing in past, rather than the actual end, perhaps change dating from to simply after?

Changed to "after". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• regions of the empire were ruled by provincial governors answerable to and authorized by the Senate and People of Rome suggest the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election may be worth mentioning briefly that often the emperors themselves were the consuls, perhaps Oftentimes, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Depending on the author, the Dominate period of the empire is considered to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine. author could mean primary or secondary source as written, perhaps Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.

Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• with the division usually based in geographic terms suggest with the division usually based on geographic regions

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In the centuries that followed, historians typically refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire", suggest Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire". for clarity regarding timeline and primary/secondary sources.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• IMO the lede should mention Justinian re-conquered a good portion of the empire, perhaps a sentence or two before The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.; maybe Under Justinian, in the sixth century, a large portion of the Western Empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Most of this territory was soon lost, including Spain in 624, Africa in 698, and a large portion of Italy under his successor, Justin II, although Italy was not fully lost until 1071. The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests

Added in with some minor alterations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article should also give a sentence or two to the fact that many pretenders continued the claim to be Roman emperors, and mention that nations such as the Ottomans also made this claim.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Legitimacy

• A vast majority of emperors also died by non-natural means suggest Very few emperors died of natural causes,

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,

Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• wrestle power away suggest seize

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion

• I've removed the usurper tag from Basiliscus as I don't think he is really considered as such by the main body of sources; he was the legitimate emperor as recognized by the political, religious, and military establishments of the time, including the senate. He just pissed all of them off at such a prodigious pace he only lasted 19 months. While the PLRE does refer to Basiliscus as a usurper in places (sometimes for differentiation I think, given that there was a Basiliscus as an opposing caesar during his reign), in his own section he is recognized as Augustus.

Yeah, I think that's fair. I think a lot of authors are a bit inconsistent in who they deem to be a usurper or legitimate. Does not make a lot of sense that Saloninus appears to be counted more often than Procopius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges

Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have no other issues with the article, great effort put in, other than some prose issues (and source issues, under a different cap), I think the article is ready for featured status. User:Iazyges

Thank you for taking the time to go through this. All of the comments above should be addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This list covers the seven Interstate Highways in the U.S. state of Washington, which cost a whopping $4.5 billion to construct ($8.3 billion today) and transport hundreds of thousands of people everyday. I have completely overhauled this one over the past few days, based on the existing FL for Michigan, and think it meets the FL criteria. I'm hoping to have this as the main article in a good topic on these Interstates soon, as a few have already been promoted. SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – After multiple readings of the article, the only issue I found is that the Vantage Bridge image lacks alt text, but I'm sure you'll fix that and won't wait to support over that one issue. Nice work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it now. SounderBruce 04:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I notice that this article is in Category:Lists of roads in Washington (state), which has the disambiguator in its name (presumably to distinguish it from Washington DC) but none of the individual articles have it. Don't know if this is an issue, but I just wondered about the inconsistency...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As Washington, D.C. is not a state (for now), it would not have state routes/highways, which eliminates a good number of entries. I think that moving the Interstate and U.S. lists would be a good idea, but I will need to check the naming guidelines first. SounderBruce 10:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "It comprises" - previous sentence only talks of the roads in the plural and then suddenly we have the singular "it"...?
  • Changed to "The system"
• "three primary Interstates and four auxiliary routes that serve most of the state's major cities" - pedantically, is it only the four that serve cities or all seven? Could maybe do with a tiny re-wording to remove this slight ambiguity
  • Added a semicolon.
• "The general plan and federal funding for the Interstate Highway System was approved" => were approved (the subject of the sentence covers two distinct things)
  • Fixed.
• "It incorporated elements" - what's the "it" here? The plan?
  • Fixed.
• "was never submitted for formal approved" - "formal approval", surely?
  • Fixed.
• " A second bill in 1951 authorized the construction [....] and was expanded" - the bill was expanded.....?
  • Added "the program"
• "and a series of lids in Seattle and Mercer Island" - what's a lid in this context?
  • Added link to freeway lid
• "The state government had never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system" => "The state government has never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system"
  • Fixed.
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed everything you've brought up, and am preparing to move the page (and its siblings), though I also want to make sure it doesn't screw up the nomination templates here. SounderBruce 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - the title isn't a big deal, I was just curious..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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. The tables here are generated via template, so I edited the template to add an optional |caption parameter. Visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the routelist top template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead. --PresN 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding that parameter to the template. I've added it to the list. SounderBruce 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

ALT text is fine, good! All the images are appropriately licenced. Nominator deserves credit not only for nominating this list, but also for uploading few of the images themselves! Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment

• A list of Interstate business routes still needs to be added. I-5 and I-90 have business routes within the state. Once it's in there and the table is completely filled out with enough references then this list may be nominated for sure. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WSDOT does not maintain the business routes and generally does not acknowledge their existence. Any attempt to add them to the list would be original research. SounderBruce 09:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video[edit]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the Mnet Asian Music Awards is commonly known as the biggest K-pop awards show in the industry. The Best Music Video category, in particular, was perhaps the most prestigious award in the event from its inauguration ceremony from 1999–2005. Since then, it has been demoted to one of the regular awards; however, it still holds important value in the event's history as it was formerly an event that aimed to honor the development of music videos in a time where the modern music industry in South Korea was still developing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "and was retitled as "Best Music Video"" => "and it was retitled as "Best Music Video""
• "the most wins in the category—having won for four consecutive years" => "the most wins in the category, having won for four consecutive years"
• Lee Seung-hwan, 2PM, Blackpink, and BTS image captions are all full sentences so need full stops
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All fixed, thanks! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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.
• Avoid having column headers in the middle of the table, like you have for "Music Video of the Year (daesang)" and "Best Music Video". Screen reader software won't treat it the say you're intending visual readers to treat it - like an exception line in the middle of a table - but instead as a stretch out first column cell (so, "year: Music Video of the Year (daesang)"). They also prevent you from having the table be sortable. See MOS:COLHEAD for more details.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

ALT text looks good! All images are appropriately licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Looks like a decent article! Will support after all comments resolved.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

* I am not an expert in Korean articles, but does this article also need a Hepburn translation? "a music video centered"-- hyphenate video and centered Award categories shouldn't be in quotations "At the inaugural ceremony in 1999"-- can be shortened to "In 1999", as readers already know 1999's the inaugural ceremony. In the infobox: "Quality short form music videos"-- link music videos "Music Video of the Year (daesang)"-- italicize daesang "From 1999–2005"-- for 2005, link 2005 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "2000–03"-- for 03, link 2003 Mnet Music Video Festival "2004–05"-- for 2004, link 2004 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "Starting in 2006"-- for 2006, link 2006 Mnet Km Music Festival "2006–08"-- for 08, link 2008 Mnet Km Music Festival "2009"-- link 2009 Mnet Asian Music Awards Now onto the image captions. "2009 and 2010 recipients"-- for 2010, link 2010 Mnet Asian Music Awards If the videos that won were mentioned (like in img1 and 2), then the rest (imgs 2, 5, 7) must follow the same style. Last image is an exception considering the large scope. "2012"-- link 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2011"-- link 2011 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2015"-- link 2015 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2016"-- link 2016 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2017-21"-- link 2017 Mnet Asian Music Awards and 2021 Mnet Asian Music Awards Table looks good to me. Now the sources. NPR should be in publisher not website parameter YouTube must be linked for consistency

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Support with all comms resolved. Great work! Btw if you are interested, I have an open FLC which is also in need of a source review. GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When I first edited this article on March 2012, the list had a plenty of problems: a lot of work has been done during these 9 years and I sincerely believe the list has been improved so much. Some months ago, I submitted to you a first candidacy and you rightly rejected it. Now, I've corrected those errors and, in my humble opinion, the list now meets all the criteria to be considered a FL. Thank you for your attention, Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead No article should start with "This article contains...."  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title with" => "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title to"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) That sentence is unsourced  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Since 1946, 29 men assumed the office in 75 years" => "Since 1946, 29 men have assumed the office in 75 years"  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) The lead overall seems a bit thin. There must be more to mention eg the longest-serving PM, the shortest-serving, other notable facts.....  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the tables and refs Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Small text should not be used Y Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal? Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC) N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Comments Ok thank you, I've tried to solve some of these problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)  Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [3], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Hi! So, what do you think, doest the list fit with the FL criteria? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hi Chris! Any news? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

About......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: About the candidacy. I mean, I remember that in the previous one, many users answered, what can I do to re-start the discussion? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You could contact other users who commented before and ask them to take a look at this one. Are there any appropriate Wikiprojects where you could invite people to come and take a look? WP:ITALY? WP:POLITICS? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123, Reywas92, and Aza24: Excuse me for pinging you here, but some months ago you commented the first candidacy of this page. During these months, I followed your suggestions and I sincerly believe that it's ready to become a FL now. I'd be glad to hear your opinions. Thank you so much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• Images need alt text
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Key needed for abbreviations in "Composition" column (i.e., what are "UL", "PR", "UECI", and so on?)
• Small text should be avoided as much as possible – at the very least, it does not need to be used in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Much of the information for the "Party" and "Composition" columns seems to be unsourced. For example, source 15 clearly states the start and end dates, and it makes it clear that it was the fourth Cavour government, but I don't see any information about the parties leading the government. Most of the sources from storia.camera.it use the same format, so it's an issue throughout the list. Where is this information sourced from?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi RunningTiger123, thanks for your comment. I've a few doubts about the key for the "Composition" column. There're dozens of parties involved in Italian governments, throughout 160 years of history, how can we create a key for all of them? Sorry, but I fear it's almost impossibile and in my humble opinion the table would look awful. Regarding the small text, we already reduced it a lot, and to be honest, it's used in some others FL in the "time in office" rows, like List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I'll try to found some better sources for the parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the key: WP:PLA states that we should "avoid Easter egg links, which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on." If the user has to click the link to see what party is being discussed, we're not following that. Some of the abbreviations could be grouped with the existing key; for instance, you could write   Christian Democracy (DC) instead of just   Christian Democracy.

Regarding the small text: Many of the lists with small text were promoted to FL status a while ago and do not reflect current standards. (For instance, the list of UK prime ministers was promoted over 15 years ago.) MOS:FONTSIZE makes it clear that "reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", and in this case, I don't see a good reason for using it; the smaller text in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns doesn't make the table appreciably narrower, so I don't know why it needs to remain. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Reywas92[edit]

• "During this period" What period? This hasn't been introduced yet
• "both branches of Parliament"->"both houses of Parliament"
• Is "Government of National Unity" the appropriate term to use in this context? The capital letters imply a proper noun. Ricasoli II Cabinet says it was called Government of National Reconciliation. Boselli and Orlando had large coalitions but they don't appear to be "national unity".

Beyond the comments above, otherwise pretty nice! Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92:  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd add I don't think the legislature and monarch/president columns should have the !, which is for row headers. Otherwise support, thanks for your improvements from before! Any comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson albums discography[edit]

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Michael Jackson albums discography for the featured list because it is sourced, well-organized, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my second featured list nomination, and I look forward to the comments. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Most album details appear to be unsourced (the chart histories may contain this info, but that is not clear at the moment), and the chart positions for the video albums are completely unsourced. Also, many sources have access dates from 2009 or 2010, so how can they cover albums released throughout the 2010s? Make sure access dates and archived pages reflect recent updates. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

;Initial comments No reason for a capital on Extended Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for a capital on Remix Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "It peaked at five on the Billboard 200 album chart" - same again Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for capital on Silver Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Epic Records, then known as CBS Records" - that's not true Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "spawned two number-one singles on the billboard hot 100" - needs a capital B Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album to peak" => "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album peak" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "At the 1980 Grammy Awards, it was nominated for two Grammy Awards" - any way to avoid repeating those two words in the same sentence? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) The source does not support the above claim Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Jackson winning Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male for "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"" - not relevant, this article is about his albums, not his singles Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) That's what I got on the first two paragraphs of the lead, will look at more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments "the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart, which spent a record 37 weeks at number one" - the chart did not spend 37 weeks at number one Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Seven singles were released. They all reached the top 10 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart." - these two very short sentences could be combined into one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight Grammy Awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards" - again, try to avoid repetitive language Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "while "Beat It" won Record of the Year" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight American Music Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards" - as above Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The single "You Are Not Alone" was the first song in history to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "and is the best selling multiple-disc release, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time" - this badly formatted sentence fragment repeats the sentence before so should be removed Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Title of Blood on the Dance Floor should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Not sure "skyrocketed" is really an encyclopedic choice of word Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Essential Michael Jackson should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) And so should the two albums in the last sentence of the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments The table heading "Compilation" should be "Compilations", as there is more than one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "albums at least 18 months old, have fallen below" => "albums at least 18 months old which have fallen below" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "Here, a list of his albums reached a major position in this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" - this is very mangled English. I would suggest "The following albums appeared on this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) I would also join that list to the one in the next sentence. It makes no sense at all to separate out those which reached a "major" position and those which reached a "minor" position, especially when some of the minor positions are higher than one of the major positions!! Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "List of officially released compilations and other albums not charted in the table" is a terrible title and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Is it just "albums which don't appear in any of the tables above"? If so, why not? Albums which did not chart should still be listed in the same table as equivalent albums which did, so for example all the Remix Suites should be in the same table as all the other remix albums...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Comments on refs Ref 2 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 9 is some random guy's self-published/print-on-demand book. There must be dozens of better refs for that statement. Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 10 does not list the author of the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 13 - what's "George"? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 15 shows the name of the RIAA in full, whereas an earlier ref shows the initials Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The title of ref 28 is not "archived copy", it also lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 42 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 43 lists no publisher for the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 44 is also self-published, so not an acceptable source Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The chart history portion of ref 55 does not exist Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 65 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 72 has the same issue as ref 9 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 82 uses different date format to the rest (as do some others) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 83 has two different date formats within the same ref! Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 101 - Nielsen Business Media Inc. is not the author's name Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 102 - author's names are the wrong way round Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 109 - why is Parool.nl wikilinked, when it doesn't have an article? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 120, 121, 129, 144 are just bare URLs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 122 has "via allmusic.com", different to all the other AllMusic refs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 125 is missing almost all fields Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 138 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 143 is another self-published book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 146 and 148 (and some others) show the author's name with forename first, unlike the rest Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Quite a lot of formatting work to do on the refs, I fear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Quick comment - ref 11: Condé Nast is a company, not a person, so shouldn't be listed as the author -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) 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" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as I see no other lingering issues at all. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Great to see this, as I'm a relatively new MJ fan ever since my brother got interested in his songs. This looks like massive amount of work, which I applaud, but of course at a cost of some flaws which I found. If they're all resolved I'll happily support this nom. GeraldWL 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why cant those links in the See also hatnote be moved to the See also section instead?

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest using the original crop of the infobox image, since the current one's blurry

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "HHe followed the debut album with Ben in the same year. It peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Kinda repetitive, suggest "In the same year, he released another album, Ben, which peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me and Forever Michael. These two albums were released in 1973 and 1975 respectively." --> "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me (1973) and Forever Michael (1975)."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records. Jackson's fifth studio album, and the first with Epic Records, Off the Wall, was released in 1979." --> "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records, and released his fifth studio album, Off the Wall, four years later."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the links on the texts "Billboard 200", "9x platinum", and "Billboard Top LPs & Tapes" as they're duplicate

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "It won a record-breaking eight Grammys at the 1984 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year. Jackson also won a record-breaking eight Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards." This can be shortened to "It won a record-breaking eight awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards (where it won Album of the Year) and the 1984 American Music Awards."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean?

five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Bad was certified 11× platinum by the RIAA. With sales of over 35 million copies sold worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." This can be shortened to "With a certification of 11× platinum by the RIAA and sales of over 35 million copies worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive.

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released with Michael in 2010 and Xscape in 2014." --> "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released: Michael (2010) and Xscape (2014)."

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• The table caption must be in title case. For example, "List of Studio albums" --> "List of studio albums"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think the format types should be linked at first mention

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW"

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• You should probably add Template:Abbr in the abbreviations, for example {{Abbr|WW|Worldwide}} which creates WW
• You can omit the abbreviation in the section heading, I think it's too specific and the table caption handles that well
• I think "List of Compilations albums" must be "List of compilation albums" without the s, considering our article for it is called Compilation album. Keep the section name tho, the s is valid there

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've worked in an electronic store for two years, but I've never heard of "CD/DVD". Mind clarifying?

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• The references are inconsistent. For telegraph.co.uk, you have "Daily Telegraph" in one reference but "Telegraph" in another. You also need to determine whether you want the publication name to be linked or not. Also titles that are in foreign language must have a translation in the "trans-title" parameter.

List of chancellors of Austria[edit]

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(Re-submission) the reason didn't really change, I just thought I would give it another shot (after more than 2 years). Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment

• The {{subst:FLC}} template doesn't seem to be placed on the talk page. And shouldn't this be "archive2"? Even if the first nomination had 'C' capital in 'chancellors'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to save the {{subst:FLC}} template, thanks for reminding me. Regarding the page name, I don't know if there are any guidelines or precedents that explain what do to in this case, so I'm just going to leave the decision to the FLC pundits. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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=1 | Party becomes !scope=col rowspan=1 | Party. (Also, you don't need rowspans if it's a single cell, only if the number would be bigger than 1)
• 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. | style="background-color: {{Social Democratic Party of Austria/meta/color}}; color:white;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="background-color: {{Social Democratic Party of Austria/meta/color}}; color:white;" | 1.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The images at the top are not captioned clockwise.
• "up until" doesn't need up
• assassination should be lowercase
• No comma after original
• "People's and the Social Democratic Party" missing a "Party"
• The next sentence is a comma splice
• "Five parties" instead of "The following"
• Should be an "and" after the final comma of that sentence
• The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has...
• And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)
• Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells
• Columns should be sortable
• The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!
• The notes for Renner and Mayr would be more relevant in the Tenure cell
• The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day.
• Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article.
• Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url.
• Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR
• With that, if Renner isn't numbered, is his photo caption in the lead as being the first correct? (and being a provisional chancellor isn't mentioned in the lead)
• The "living former chancellors" section should be removed. Both the main table and the statistics table denote the living chancellors, and this is redundant.
• "Oldest living chancellors" is mere trivia and I don't see the purpose of this, which can also be deduced from the stats table.

Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Y Partly done.

"The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has..."

"And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)"

I've removed the keys completely (except for the "denotes acting" part), as the parties are already included and linked in the table, and their full names are mentioned in the lead.

No, you can't have unexplained abbreviations even if they're linked; these need to be written out somewhere because their full names are not mentioned in the lead because they're German abbreviations but the lead gives English names.

"Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR"

I'm glad that you addressed that, because someone re-added succession numbers to the table; succession numbers are not used in Austria, this has been discussed multiple times.

"Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells"

I've restored the original table design without succession numbers; now there is just a plain, colored line, which exists to complement the party cells. I believe adding colored backgrounds to the party cells would be a bit "visually intense", and some readers might not be able spot blue links with a turquoise background.

Agree that that colored line looks nicer and is becoming more standard

"The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!"

The color and party columns are very small; I think having them on the left makes orientation easier for readers. But if you insist, I will change it.

Looking through the other leader FLs and more in Europe, while many keep the narrow color column on the left for orientation, the party is consistently to the right, which makes sense because as a list of chancellors, the chancellors themselves should go first. It's seems pretty redundant though, since except for Schober the chancellor's party is always listed first in the government parties. Maybe remove the party column altogether but then bold their party in the government column?

"Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article."

I would like to, but the vast majority of cabinets neither have any articles of their own, nor associated sections on the articles of their leaders (i.e. the chancellors).

"Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The references have "website=www.parlament.gv.at" but you should give the actual name, not url. Better to use "publisher=Republic of Austria Parliament" instead.

– Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day."

I'm sorry, for some reason the list didn't mention that: Breisky was acting chancellor and thus excluded from the calculation. But if necessary, I can still mention him in the lead.

The background added is good. Though User:Kramler/Kurz is not the 25th chancellor make me wonder if Seyss-Inquart should even count either since the Parliament doesn't include him, maybe skip that stat? Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

– Colonestarrice (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Y Partly done. (I also found a parliament source for Seyss-Inquart.) The colored line supplements the party column, if the column was to be moved somewhere else it would kind of lose its purpose. Pages like list of presidents of the United States also do not put the person on the far-left. I think having the chancellors centre-left, highlights them more than having them on the far-left. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLORCODING, you can't use just colour to indicate the acting chancellors. You either need to also use a symbol, or maybe in this case actually put (acting) after the dates of office -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• "Kreisky is known as one of the world's perhaps most successful socialist leaders" => "Kreisky is known as perhaps one of the world's most successful socialist leaders". Also such a bold claim needs a source
• "Following Dollfuss's Assassination" - assassination is not a proper noun so it should not have a capital A
• "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with only 2 days in office." - Breisky also appears to have served for two days. He may have only been acting, but he still served
• Actually, didn't Seyss-Inquart serve for three days (11-13 March)......?
• The name column should sort based on surname, not forename (this applies to both tables)
• The tenure column does not sort correctly
• Any reason why the assumed/left office columns in the second table are not sortable whereas all the others are?
• Ref 57 is a footnote and should be formatted like the other footnotes
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see that you have removed the sortability function from the tenure column altogether. That now means that if you sort the table on a different column it's literally impossible to get back to the original order. Not really ideal....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but the thing is that the main table was created with the intention of being unsortable; more than half of all columns weren't designed for sorting, and the cells that span more than one row, mess up the whole table once you start sorting anyways. If readers want to sort chancellors by name, birth date, term of office and so on, they can use the statistics table which was made for that exact purpose. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case you should make the main table completely unsortable. It doesn't really work to have a table which is essentially a timeline but then if you re-sort in any way you can't get back to showing the timeline in chronological order...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The statistics table is not sortable either...while the date of birth properly uses {dts}, assumed office uses {start date}, which sorts numerically by day. Left office does the same. If you just use dts in the main table, it will be properly sortable as well. The numbering in the stats table should also be removed just as above. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - apologies for forgetting to come back! :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• "of the Austrian Republic" — "Austrian Republic" redirects to Austria. Why not just write "Austria" instead of "Austrian Republic"?
• " – the first federal chancellor" — should start this in a new sentence
• "Ten chancellors served" — avoid starting a sentence by a number

If you have any suggestions on how to rephrase the sentence, I would welcome them with open arms. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"There have been ten chancellors who have served ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "by Austrian National Socialists" — would "by Austrian Nazis" be better?

I'm gonna be honest here, "Austrian Nazis" doesn't have a very encyclopaedic tone to it. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Schuschnigg in turn was" — I'd remove "in turn"
• "Reich Commissioner Josef Bürckel" — avoid linking two adjacent words
• "After the liberation of Vienna and the dissolution of Nazi Germany, Austria reinstated its republican form of government." — which year? specify.
• "However, the country remained under allied occupation until 1955 and thus the country's ultimate" — "the country" could/should be replaced by "Austria"
• "the People's Party and the Social Democratic Party have largely dominated Austrian politics. The People's Party/" — "People's Party" should be linked in its first instance.
• same comment as above for "Social Democratic Party"
• "Seven parties never held ..." — avoid starting a sentence by a number

Same as above. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"There have been seven parties which never held ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• "resigns or is" — comma after 'resigns'
• "If the president in turn dies, resigns or is otherwise incapacitated, the chancellor" — this is repetition of "If the president in turn dies, resigns or is otherwise incapacitated". Could be write it as "In event of vacancy in chancellor's office"?
• Not a major issue, but can we arrange the key for parties in a manner similar to United States presidential elections in the District of Columbia#Presidential elections?
• Okay, so we also had a chancellor changes after this list was nominated. Interesting!
• Fix the disambiguation links for parties in the row of Wolfgang Schüssel and Werner Faymann

They're intentional and unfortunately I don't really see a workaround here (but I'm open to suggestions). Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I understood, fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is the any reliable source which discusses "List of chancellors of Austria by age/age at assuming office/longevity/age at retirement/death/lifespan?? If not, I feel that the entire "Statistics" section in WP:LC. It is merely statistics, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Feel free to disagree. I just want to know your point-of-view.
• A nice majority of sources is from "Republic of Austria Parliament", which is a primary source. Are there no books/other secondary sources which discuss this topic?

While the chancellery's website obviously is, I'm not really sure if Parliament is a primary source according to WP:PRIMARY's definition of what constitutes a primary source. Anyways, I still checked and ironically the only think I found were more primary sources. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I initial concern was that there much be few scholar sources which are consider secondary and more reliable sources. But I am not gonna persist this issue, accepting the fact that sourcing requirment criteria for FLs is significantly lower than FAs. Also, in the "www.britannica.com" sources, I'dwrite it as "Britannica". I'll also remove 'www.' in other website works. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The rest is  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support the promotion of this article as a featured list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "After the Allies declined a union between Austria and Germany." "declined" does not seem the right word. Maybe "vetoed"?
• The lead is strong on history but weak on explaining the powers of the chancellor and the method of election at different periods. You refer to appointment at the beginning, periods of dictatorship and an elected chancellor. How were they chosen in the inter-war period? Were elections abolished during periods of dictatorship? Are they now elected by first past the post or alternative vote? What specific powers does the chancellor have? Does he appoint the vice chancellor and the cabinet? Can parliament dismiss his ministers?
• Note b. "The chancellor is appointed by the president of Austria." I assume this only referred to one period and it would avoid confusion if you changed "is" to "was".
• In view of the large areas of white space in the table, you might consider spelling out the names of the parties instead of using abbreviations. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I refined the lead and I hope that the new prose now satisfies your first point. The lead does not elaborate on the powers of the chancellor because the office is vested with almost no power. The chancellor is purely know as the leader of the government. The chancellor is appointed by the president, who by convention picks the nominee of the largest party in Parliament. Legislative elections and cabinet formations are very complicated things in Austria, so I wouldn't want to go in on this here. As history has substantially reshaped the office over time and the page covers mostly historical officeholders, I focused on the historical aspects in the lead to give the list more context. Readers can always find out more about the office and elections in Austria by visiting the respective standalone articles.

In view of the large areas of white space in the table, you might consider spelling out the names of the parties instead of using abbreviations - unfortunately, I think that names like "National Socialist German Worker's Party" or "Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria" are a bit too long. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I overlooked the statement at the beginning that the chancellor is appointed and saw the reference to an elected chancellor below. This seems a contradiction which needs explanation. The facts that president picks the leader of the largest party by convention and that the office has almost no power should be stated. Who picks the vice chancellor and ministers? This should be covered. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Support, Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Municipalities of Querétaro[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC) and Coyatoc (talk)

One more list to add to the collection. I'm happy to keep working on the project of bringing all list of municipalities in Mexico to a high standard (12 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Caption of the middle image is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop

• Done

• Shouldn't La Cañada sort under C, in the same way that song titles/film titles/etc that start with "The" sort on the next word?
  • Hi! I can help Mattximus with these, let me know if the feedback format needs to be improved, first time :) Spanish supports both, it's correct for La Cañada to show either under L or under C.^[1] Articles are included in the default sorting of these tables. Coyatoc (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• El Marqués seems to have almost exactly doubled in population in 10 years. Do we know why this is? It seems so striking that I don't know whether it's worth mentioning in the lead.....?
  • It's part of Querétaro City's metropolitan area, one of the fastest growing in Mexico. I could add a note to that effect in the opening paragraph. Coyatoc (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - apologies for forgetting to check back until now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – I have no major issues with this list and am happy to support right away. One small adjustment you could consider: you refer to the capital city as "Querétaro City" in the lead, "Querétaro" in an image caption, and "Santiago de Querétaro" in the table. Picking one name and sticking with it would probably be better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.

• The name of the municipality is Querétaro, I standardised it in the article. Coyatoc (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Don't duplicate the caption in ALT text.

• Done

• An image is missing ALT text.

• Done

• Don't use fixed size for images (250 px in this case) Better use "|upright=" parameter.

• Done

• Image licencing is fine.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the image review! I believe I've addressed all concerns. Mattximus (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Pass for image review. Any comments here would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Pretty short article, but eh, a list's a list. GeraldWL 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal)"-- suggest putting the translation in a footnote. As well as the other translations.
• "Map of Mexico with Querétaro highlighted"-- suggest adding comma between "Mexico" and "with"

• For these two, they would break the consistency between all the other municipalities of Mexico list, and I don't think a comma belongs there.

• Sounds reasonable.

• Suggest removing the municipalities names as it's redundant; for example "Corregidora was originally incorporated as San Francisco Galileo, changing its name on May 28, 1931" --> "Originally incorporated as San Francisco Galileo, changing its name on May 28, 1931"

• There is a problem with this suggestion, if the name is removed, readers can't scroll to the notes and see a list of the original names, they would then have to reverse click to see what the context was.

• Well the whole point of footnotes is to assist readers while reading the table; if a reader directly jumps to the footnotes then yes they won't understand, because that's not what footnotes are made for.

• But what harm is there for readers that do this to keep the extra word? I've done this before and it's helped me. I can see no reason why we can't accommodate both types of readers, nothing is lost.

• True. Don't mind this then :)

• For ref. 5 and 6, remove the authors, as staff writers should not be incorporated.

• I do not believe in either case it would be considered staff writers, I could be wrong.

• It is actually, it's like saying "NYT Staff" or "LAX Airport" in articles written by NYT or LAX Airport.

• In this specific case, the format is to indeed include OECD as the authour: see [4]

• Still, OECD is not an author because it isn't a person. The "OECD author" is merely referring to staff writers, and we don't indicate it if there's a staff writer.

• Suggest changing "INEGI" to "National Institute of Statistics and Geography" as the official name (INEGI is abbreviation).
• Needs consistency on whether to link publishers or not.

• Done.

• Suggest adding Geography portal.

• Which specific geography portal did you have in mind? I have it linked to Mexico portal already.

• The portal. Since this article has elements of Mexico and geography, but this is super trivial tbh.  Done
• Thank you for the suggestions, I've made several but had questions/comments on others. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Ian Rush[edit]

Nominator(s): REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... Rush was one of the greatest goal scorers of his generation and has held records of that nature both for Wales and Liverpool, where he is still all-time leading goalscorer. I have expanded the lead to comply with the FL criteria and I hope it will pass inspection. Any criticism is welcome as always! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The prose is extremely short at less than 1300 characters. Is there really not any more to say?

Normally I would add more about any tournaments that they qualified for but that's not the case with this one. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Get rid of the {{clear}} which (on my screen at least) causes a massive unnecessary whitespace  Done
• "Rush's goal tally included famous goal" => "Rush's goal tally included a famous goal"  Done
• Also, famous according to whom?

I have added another reference referring to the famous circumstances of his goal. If you feel that doesn't suffice then I would be happy to take it out. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Next sentence starts with "And", which is a non-no  Done
  • You can't start a sentence with "As well as" either. It clearly follows on from the previous sentence, so just combine both sentences into one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    •  Done
• "against during a friendly against China." - huh?  Done
• "one of only 15 ever scored by the nation" - the nation of Wales had never scored a hat-trick, needs rewording  Done
• Opponents are linked every time in the table but venues and competitions only once each - why is this?  Done
• Why is the first digit in the score column in bold?  Done
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`  Done
• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! No.` becomes `! scope=col | No.`, etc. - each on their own line --PresN 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @PresN:,  Done. Sorry it took so long. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @PresN:, are there any other issues that you would like me to address? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Why is File:Ian Rush, Wales Team, 1988 (2).jpg licensed as CC SA 4.0? The source states that "Auteursrechthebbende Nationaal Archief, CC0", which probably translates as "Copyright holder National Archives, CC0". So it should be CC 0 license.  Done
• Suggesting to add ALT text.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pass for image review. Though, still suggesting to add ALT text, but I doubt whether its a part of FL, or even FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

• The short description is almost same as the list title. Can set it to "{{short decription|none}}"  Done
• The article lead should be somewhat in the chronological order. We mention his 1996 retirement before him becoming all-time top goalscorer in 1992.  Done
• "during a friendly against" — not a sports person, but shouldn't it be "during a friendly match against"?  Done
• Can we expand the lead?
• In the references, should write "RSSSF.com"as just "RSSSF" in the "Publisher" field.  Done
• That is pretty much all there is to say.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit[edit]

• I agree with Kavyansh, the lead does feel a bit sparse. Is there nothing more we can add?
• "He made his debut on 21 May 1980, in an away game against Scotland. He scored his first international goal two years later, in his eighth international appearance, a home game against Northern Ireland." Both of these sentences need references
• "Rush became the Wales national team's all-time top goalscorer on 9 October 1992, when he scored the only hat-trick of his Wales career in a 6–0 win over the Faroe Islands to bring him level with the record held by Trevor Ford, who scored 23 goals in 38 matches between 1947 and 1957, and Ivor Allchurch, who scored the same number in 68 matches between 1951 and 1966." This sentence is far too long. I'd split it into two.
• Big concerns about the use of eu-football.info referencing the whole table. This site doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. A much better source or individual referencing of his goals will be needed instead.

NapHit (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96[edit]

• "Rush broke the record with a goal against Belgium on 31 March 1993, and scored four more goals in his Wales career to extend the record to 28 goals." - this sentence will need verifying by a reliable citation
• "He held it until 2018, when Gareth Bale scored his 29th international goal during a friendly against China." - same issue as above
• "Rush's tally included a famous goal that saw Wales beat then-world champions Germany in 1991." - please state the final score of the match mentioned in this sentence
• Use the Abbr template on the No. column in the main table to indict to the reader hovering over it that it means number
• Consider adding an extra column in the main stating the cap in which the goal(s) were scored as is common with other "List of international goals scored by xxxxxxxx" that are featured lists
• The individual goals that Rush scored and mentioned in the table can be individually referenced as is common with similiar lists that are featured

That is all I have MWright96 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): --Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This list was previously nominated for FLC in 2008, but was declined for being too short.(And rightfully so.) I believe the article is now ready to be recognized as a Featured List, as it has all the necessary info, and similar articles for other teams are Featured like the Ravens, Rams and many more.. I look forward to the comments to know the reviews.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Drive-by comment: While older FLs may use references placed at the end to source the list, the current standard is that citations should be placed in the body of the article. If a source is used for the entire list, it can be placed in the table caption or in a column heading instead of in each row. Also, the sources in the References section need to be updated; if the access dates are from 2007 and 2008, how can they be used as sources for the entire table through 2021? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

With my drive-by comment resolved, here's a more thorough review.

• Image needs alt text
• "Houston Texans" should not be bolded in lead
• "2002 NFL draft" → "2002 NFL Draft"
• Footnotes explaining draft pick trades need to be sourced
• Footnotes c–f and g–h use two different styles to explain draft trades – pick one and stick with it
• References column should be unsortable
• Rename "Special References" section to "External links"
  • Also, website name should be "Houston Texans", not "Houston Texas"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead should probably specify that the Texans are an American football team. I know it says "joined the National Football League", but given how many different sports are called "football" by someone in the world, it would be best to be completely clear
• Paid is spelt incorrectly (unless "payed" is valid in American English?)
• Quarterback is wikilinked in the lead but offensive tackle not - any reason?
• Italics on always seem unnecessary to me
• "No player selected by the Texans has been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall Of Fame"- no player selected in the first round specifically, or no player ever selected?
• Row 2 of the key refers to the Ravens, presumably this is a copy/paste error.....?
• Sentence fragments like "Youngest player ever taken in modern draft era." should not have full stops. This applies to pretty much everything in the Notes column.
• As above, every row needs a specific reference. These would probably work best in a separate column.
• The key suggests that a dagger will appear against Pro Bowl players, but it doesn't
• Footnotes (eg "The franchise was established in 1999, but played its first season in 2002.") should be separated from actual references
• Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops (think this only applies to one note)
• Ref 11 shows no accessdate
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• @ChrisTheDude: All the problems have been solved now. you may please have a look.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The fourth and fifth comments above have not been addressed. Also, you have removed the full stops from all footnotes, including the ones which are complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, you have addressed the ninth by removing the dagger from the key. Apologies for being unclear, but what you should have done is left the dagger in the key and added it to the relevant players. For accessibility reasons, colour alone cannot be used as an identifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I have added the daggers and have got the hof problem solved. I didn't spot any italics this time. I removed some seeing your first comment. Please inform me where they are. Also - I rechecked all the footnotes and found that all of them are free of full-stops. I hope we are allowed to keep other punctuations like comma's to give the sentence meaning. If I am wrong please inform me.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: the footnotes, my comment was "Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops". I never said to remove them from all notes. Notes a, c, d, e and f are complete sentences and therefore need full stops. Re: italics, my comment was "Italics on always seem unnecessary to me". I accept this is maybe ambiguous, so apologies. What I meant is that the word "always" is italicised twice in the lead and (IMO) there is no reason for this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Problem solved I guess.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

TRM[edit]

• Note [a] is unreferenced.
• "cost of $700 million " inflate to 2020 $
• Isn't there a link for 2002 NFL draft?
• "team's most recent" put a year in there in case this doesn't get updated for a year or more...
• "with the worst record picking first" the record doesn't make the pick, the team with the worst record does...
• "the Super Bowl champion always picks 32nd, and the Super Bowl loser always picks " you don't need to repeat Super Bowl in either case here.
• Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
• Row scope can be applied to the player name each time.
• For the 7x, 2x etc, are you using an x or a ×, the latter should be what's being used.
• The footnotes need references.
• NO SHOUTING in ref titles please.
• New York Times requires a subscription.
• Ref 7 doesn't need the publisher in the ref title.
• WaPo refs needs subs too.
• Why only WaPo linked in the refs, not NYT, Bleacher Report etc?
• What are "Special References"? do you mean "External links"?
• Put a bullet point in front of that "Special Reference".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have solved most of the problems. I didn't get the row scope and the 7x, 2x thing. It would be nice if you could explain it once more. I have added citations to the footnotes. But the draft trade footnotes don't have refs. They are not even present in the draft-page. I also hope that the NYT and WaPo additions aren't a huge problem. I only used them as they are considered reliable. Wish you the best.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So for the 7x (7 times) are you using the x character (ecks) or the × symbol (multiplication symbol)? It should be the latter. Row scopes, read MOS:DTT to see how to add code into the table for compliance with MOS:ACCESS. Reliable sources such as WaPo are fine but use the url-access=subscription parameter if they need people to pay for them. And the footnotes need referencing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've solved all the other problems except the 'col method'. I couldn't get a hang of it and program started showing errors. And the links are no longer working. I'm kind of stuck. You can view my edits in the history to tell me where I was wrong.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look later and try to fix the issues I've raised! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done the row scopes. It's made the colour go away which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• All the citations in the Ref column need to be center aligned. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Atlantis77177 – Any updates here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I apologize for delay as I had personal matters to attend to in the stretch. I would also would like you to help me out here, as I am kind of a new editor, so what you meant wasn't exactly clear. Could you help me by fixing the problem yourself when you are free, as in that way we could easily solve your issue with the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no issues at-all. I'll do it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; now done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the list is about all those drivers who have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans sports car race overall. Such famous names in the world of motor racing to have won the race include Tom Kristensen, Jacky Ickx, Derek Bell, Emanuele Pirro, Frank Biela, Graham Hill, Alexander Wurz, José Froilán González, A. J. Foyt, Henri Pescarolo and more recently Fernando Alonso. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related specially to sports car racing on Wikipedia. I look forward to all comments MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "close by the city" => "close to the city"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The race along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport" => "The race forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix" seems more natural to me
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "winning driver's feet and hands and signature" => "winning driver's feet, hands and signature"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "placement in the pavement at Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district" => "placement in the pavement in Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district"
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "There have been four countries who have" => "There have been four countries which have"
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Porsche hold the record [.....] 19 since its" - plural/singular disagreement
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than every entered racing team on 13 occasions" - I don't understand this. Is it meant to be "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than any other racing team, having won on 13 occasions"?
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "three victorious participants per car became the norm" - just "three participants per car became the norm", surely?
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Overall and no lower class winners are included" - apologies, but I don't understand what this means, can you reword/elaborate?
  • Removed MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Image captions are all complete sentences so need full stops
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Have made changes based on each of the points above MWright96 (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM[edit]

• Is there a ref for the French-language title of the race?
• "industrialist Emile Coquile to " comma after Coquile.
• "a cast ... are cast" repetitive.
• "won the 1996 race.[10] " overlinked.
• "the 1923 edition" ditto.
• Consider converting the distance to miles for those who don't "get" the metric system.
• And I would put (km) explicitly in the header as well as in the hover-over {{abbr}} text.
• As distance is in the table, is it worth noting shortest and longest race distances in the lead? I personally find it interesting that the average race winning distance has gone up by a factor of around 2.5 since the 1920s.

That's it. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: All of the above points have been addressed 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Excellent article; as a non-racing enthusiast it's easy to understand I love the design! Just some comments, after that I'll sp. GeraldWL 10:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

* "(French: 24 heures du Mans)"-- this shouldn't be bolded as 24 heures du Mans doesn't redirect here. Also, should the "H" be capitalized? Because in the 24 Hours of Le Mans article it is. Done MWright96 (talk) "It was first staged"-- "staged" meas "presented or performed on a stage" and I don't think 24LM is in a stage it's in a circuit. Suggest changing it to "held" Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "at the former grocery store owner Bernard Warain's initiative"-- suddenly having some grocery store owner is a bit weird, and I don't think Warrain being a grocery store owner is vital in the history of 24LM. Suggest "at the the initiative of a man named Bernard Warain" Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "at the 1924 race" --> "in 1924" for consistency. Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Suggest using Template:N/a for the N/A cells Have instead added No series to replace the N/A cells MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Suggest using Template:Abbr or Template:Abbrlink for the Series abbreviations Done and also used abbrlink template for class and season abbreviations MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The table nevertheless looks great, but I suggest merging similar cells (e.g. in By Manufacturer, Matra-Simca and Peugeot have the same wins of 3, this can be merged). But over time I've learned that this is also personal preference, so if you prefer the status quo it's totally okay :) Will retain the status quo MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The image captions should not have full stops as they're not full sentences Done MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Ref 5 is dead, I found. I changed the url-status. A bot archived the remaining unarchived links but is unable to reformat dead links, suggest you check them all. IAbot does not say there are any dead links whether they are temporary or permanent MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Have made changes to the list and have replied where appropriate MWright96 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. GeraldWL 06:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

• Archive link for source 3 appears to be incorrect (links to Meta-Wiki?)
• "is second with six victories and Derek Bell" → "is second with six victories, and Derek Bell"
• "followed by French racers with 29 and German drivers with 19" → "followed by France with 29 and Germany with 19" (keep subjects consistent with United Kingdom)
• Series abbreviations key should not rely solely on mouseover text – add the full names in a column next to the abbreviations for mobile viewers (similar to tyre manufacturers)
• For similar reasons, a class key would be useful for mobile viewers
• Consider writing out "laps", "km", and "mi" instead of "L", "K", and "M" in header (for same reason again)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Have made the changes suggested above MWright96 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 2019/2020[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the ranking system used for the 2019-20 snooker season. I have split the main table into two as it was very long. Let me know what you think about this nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

• Players' names in tables should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This might take a while, as there is 128 people to update, unless there's an easier way? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: - any update on the above.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that, should now be sortable by last name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I think you may have missed a few, unfortunately. In the first table, Andy Lee still sorts under A and Jamie O'Neill under J...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

More comments[edit]

• "contributing to a players world ranking" => "contributing to a player's world ranking"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Originally, the world rankings were decided only based on" => "Originally, the world rankings were decided based only on"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "where he had over 500,000 point lead" => "where he had a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season are removed" => "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season were removed"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "used to determine the seedings for preceding tournaments" - "preceding" means "previous/earlier", so that cannot be the right word here
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• One table has revisions 1-9 but then the next one suddenly also has 0 and 10.....?
  • Indeed, revision 0 is the one from the end of the prior season, and number 10 is the same, the one at the end of this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The names are sorted by the scores at the end of the season" => "The names are initially sorted by the scores at the end of the season" (because the user can re-sort them) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Revision dates: "players" should be "player's" with the apostrophe.
• Not the biggest deal in the world, but the sources for this table are out of numerical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

• Consider opening the article with something like "The Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 were..."
  • I'm not the biggest fan of shoe-horning in the title of the article like this. I don't think it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Might be useful to include what a snooker season is in the lead.
  • reworded to get some. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Might be useful to include the start and end dates of the season in the lead.
  • I'm not sure this is neccesary, as we know it can change season on season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I meant specifically for 2019/2020; or maybe something like "the season started with the x tourament in [month] and lasted until the end of the world championship in [month]. Not obligatory, as the dates are a click away at 2019–20 snooker season. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding a nav box to the previous and next years' rankings (in addition to the nav box at the end.)
  • I was thinking about creating an infobox for this, adding things like the season dates, number one player at the end of the season, and world champion etc. It's still something I'm playing with, but I don't think infoboxes are relevant for a FLC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd seen the nav thing at the top of Snooker world rankings 2017/2018, but I don't know whether that's an acceptable format. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding something about relegations, and possibly about promotions, to the World Snooker Tour based on ranking positions. (I'm not sure exactly how it worked or works, especially with multi-year tour cards and wild cards.)

• Did you consider this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weren't defending champions seeded first in tournaments?
  • They were, but finding an actual source that comments this is ridiculously difficult. Also, quite a few of the events didn't see the defending champion qualify (such as the German Masters, Players and Tour Championship). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • For German Masters, it looks like Zhao Xintong, who defeated defending champion Kyren Wilson, went to Wilson's place in the last 32, not that the draw was re-done after qualifying. But I take your point about sources for some of this stuff being unavailable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• If defending champions were seeded first, amend "Seedings for each event were the world rankings" to say defending champions were top seeds and the rest were in list order.
  • Same deal as above, but also the world champion was also seeded at least second. It didn't show up much, as Trump was almost always number one. I have reworded to make it less definitive Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the images are different sizes? If not, I suggest making them the same as each other.
  • I think you'd have to crop one of the images to do that, and I'm not sure how you go about doing that Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, did you have anything further for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not much...BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "since the 1976" - either remove "the" or amend to which season it was.

• • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Given that there aren't many independent sources cited specifically about the 2019/2020 rankings, I had a look at what Snooker Scene said when it published the end of season ranking list. There is a comment there that Trump's six ranking titles in a season was "unprecedented" and, amongst some other notes on individual players' ranking changes, that Mark Williams "experienced the sharpest decline among the elite, plummeting from third to tenth". Might be worth mentioning Trump's record-breaking season but I didn't see anything there or in a quick search of other news sources from August/September 2020 that was a significant omission from the article text. (No issues with offical WST/WPBSA sources for the stats details.)

• • I have added, with a different ranking. I'd be against talking about Williams, as they are just describing the top 16 players, and there were much bigger drops down the leaderboard than seven positions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose. All done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`; currently you have `scope=column` in the first table and nothing in the second/third. Note that since you have subheader cells in the second table, those should get colscopes as well.
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| 1` becomes `!scope=row| 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries PresN, I can do that. There's about 300 rows to do, so I'll get to work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It took me a bit of time, but I've now scoped these PresN/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: - was there anything more I'd need to do on this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

• I see both the images licenced appropriately. I'll suggest adding ALT text. Rest, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Sdkb[edit]

Per your allusion to wanting some comments on WP:DISCORD, here I am. I won't be reviewing this thoroughly enough to !vote, but some quick comments:

• Ronnie O'Sullivan began the season as the highest ranked player, however, Judd Trump became world number one after winning the 2019 International Championship. Needs a semi-colon after "player" or player, but Judd, since it's otherwise two sentences spliced together. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• See MOS:SEASONS for "summer" in the footnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Normally the image would go below the hatnote, but I think the current layout is fine if you'd prefer it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • moved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• For the article title, MOS:SLASH normally advises against slashes. Could you speak to why you chose to use one here? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's due to this discussion Talk:Snooker world rankings 2019/2020#Requested move 15 January 2020. I can't say I have any feelings either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Last sentence of seeding lists intro is missing punctuation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm a little wary of the choice to use two separate tables for revisions 1–5 vs. 6–10. It works okayish on desktop, but what about mobile? I'm not sure if there's any perfect solution, since having the table extend off the page horizontally isn't desirable either, but just wanted to put it out for brainstorming. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there is some discussions. I found that a big long table is much worse. I edit almost exclusively on mobile, and the table is easier to deal with as two tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• It seems like everyone who is listed is male. Are these rankings only for men's snooker, or do men just occupy all the top spots? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The WST is open to both genders, but the first time it had any female players was this season, they have now added qualification to the winner and runner-up of the Womens World Championship. However, this season was completely male. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• The non-Western names appear to sort correctly in the tables; nice going with that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is wikilinked in the references as the publisher, but what about Sky News or Eurosport? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed, I dislike the linking of source names. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    Personally, I very much prefer to link them (it helps readers verify the reliability of a source), but for FAC purposes, all that matters is that you're consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all for now. Best wishes with this FLC! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, I've left some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good to me! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I know your review was quite some time ago, but are you good with where the list is now? --PresN 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Chuck Mosley[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Chuck was never the strongest singer, nor the most consummate navigator of the music industry, but he was truly one of a kind. I've modelled this list on the previous articles List of songs recorded by Faith No More, which it will have some overlap with, and List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted, both of which were successful at FLC before. Any comments or critiques on this one would be greatly welcome, and if you take the time out of your day to listen to some of his work, allow me to recommend "Chinese Arithmetic", "Shout", or "Tractor" as standouts. Thanks in advance for any contributions, and don't be afraid to Introduce Yourself. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[edit]

• "During his career, Mosley recorded" he recorded.
• "joining Faith No More" in what year?
• "1985's We Care a Lot," would oddly prefer "We Care a Lot (1985),"...
• "being fired in 1988" why? And maybe try to avoid three different years in one sentence.
• "début" I think by now we've adopted this into English without the need for a diacritic.
• ""due to the disease of addiction" " as that's so esoteric, suggest it's attributed.
• Quotes are unusual in this type of article but I kinda like them. " up?’." could use not having double punctuation nor curly punctuation.
• "cover of Sinéad O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U". is this referenced? And wasn't it Prince who wrote it?
• Any chance of telling us when Mosley was pictured in each of those images?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think I've got most of these at present--I didn't know whether to include a caption in the lead image (it could be done using a table row), and the O'Connor image is now a multiple image template showing her and Prince, with an added cite to support who did what. Changes are here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass[edit]

• All the images are freely licenced. 2 are from Flickr, and 2 are own work of an commons user. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

• "One of Mosley's last releases included" - either "One of Mosley's last releases was" or "Mosley's last releases included" but not this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've reworded this one—the meaning was that the release was the Joe Haze Sessions recorded and the song was included on that, but I've rewritten it instead as "Mosley posthumously released a cover ...". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

• The table needs a caption: `|+ caption_text` as the first line of the table code, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can hide it from visual browsers like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`. Captions allow screen reader software to scan straight to a named table without having to read out all of the text before it first each time. --PresN 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Added; just used the title of the article but can amended it if brevity is better. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

More comments[edit]

• "both as a solo artist and as a member of Faith No More, Cement, and Primitive Race." - and Indoria, judging from the table?
• Could do with mentioning /explaining Indoria in paragraph 3 as well. Where does it fit into his overall career?
• In some cases there are up to four versions of the same song listed separately. Do these all need their own separate listing?
• That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly the Indoria release is something which wouldn't even pass GNG for its own article, there's so little coverage of them out there that this was all I was able to include, and I suspect without Mosley's appearance there would be less than nothing as unreliable fan blogs wouldn't even be picking it up due to his connection. I have nothing else I could source it to and that's why I wasn't really including them in the same breath as projects which at least have sourcing, if not always standalone articles, but I could add it to the sentence in your first point if you feel it merits inclusion there. As to multiple entries for songs, anything listed more than once is a separate recording, maybe a live version or a re-recording or a different demo version of a song; this can be seen at List of songs recorded by Faith No More too with some of the re-recordings or live versions. It's the sort of information that appeals to the kind of completionist fan--like me!--who wants to know all the different variations, I suppose. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - might be worth delinking Indoria and his/her/their album if you genuinely think they aren't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've taken the links out as you suggest. Thanks for your review. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support the only thing that bothers me are the red links, unless you're planning on creating pages on Joe Haze Sessions and Chris Kniker. Otherwise, we care a lot about you people yeah, you bet we care a lot - and to quote Mosley's replacement, you want it all, and you can have it! igordebraga ≠ 21:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

Sylvester Medal[edit]

Ironholds has left Wikipedia

An old 2008 FL with missing information about awards given non-biennially after 2009 and many unreferenced recipients. Also, all pre-1940 recipients have detailed and sourced rationales, but not the rest. Wretchskull (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rumford Medal[edit]

Ironholds has left Wikipedia

An old 2009 FL with missing information available on the internet, most recipients being unsourced, and the lede being completely unreferenced. There are no explanatory notes stating why some awards given non-biennially exist, such as after 1874 and 2018. Wretchskull (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabor Medal[edit]

The contributor(s) have retired from Wikipedia

An old 2009 FL with a lede wholly reliant on one primary source and is underdeveloped due to the information available on the internet. Also, the majority of the recipients are unsourced. Wretchskull (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Medal[edit]

Notified: Ironholds

An old 2008 FL that is completely reliant on a single primary source apart from the "past winners" section, which itself is unnecessary. Wretchskull (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Darwin Medal[edit]

Notified: Ironholds, WikiProject Awards

This is a FL from an old 2009 nomination, back when the rules weren't as stringent. The entire list is based on one primary source, and it lacks quite a lot of background information available on the internet. Wretchskull (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wretchskull: I am willing to work here, and will try to add citation in a next few days. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Kavyansh.Singh for taking the initiative! I highly recommend you structure the lede after the most recent Royal Society medal featured list, the Milner Award; the rest of the FLs are relatively outdated. You can most likely find reliable sources by going to the respective institutions of each recipient (if they have been in one) and search for relevant key words about the subject. You do not have to add images if you do not want to; I'll perhaps take care of that later if I have time. Wretchskull (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Images added, will add ALT text soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

List of European Union member states by political system[edit]

Notified: Nightstallion, SPQRobin WP EU, WP Politics

This 2006 promotion has been cleanup-tagged since 2014 and is largely uncited. It needs significant work to get back to the current standards for featured lists. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, it's been ages since I last worked on this. Yes, I'm sure standards have become far more stricter since then. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to make sufficient time to work on the list to get its quality in line with current quality standards – if anyone else is interested in this, I'd be very happy to make a joint effort, though. —Nightstallion 22:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist referencing issues still present. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, nothing has really happened. Hog Farm _Talk 15:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

John Frusciante discography[edit]

Notified: NSR77, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... it has seen better days. Tons of poor sourcing, numerous tags, and quite a bit of uncited material. This 2007 promotion clearly no longer warrants the star. – zmbro _(talk) 20:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist – the list has had large unsourced sections since its promotion, so it's doubtful that this is going to improve to the standards needed for today's FLs. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist- includes citations to Soundcloud, Bandcamp, an "unofficial fan site", and a couple YouTube videos that might be WP:COPYLINK problems. Not even close. Hog Farm _Talk 00:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University[edit]

Notified: Sephiroth BCR, Minimumbias, WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Higher education

This list was promoted back in 2008 along with a few other "List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with X" lists I might bring here to WP:FLRC later. The reason I'm bringing it here is that I don't think it satisfies WP:FLCR 3(c) (In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.), particularly when it comes to the WP:LISTCRITERIA.

Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals. Universities have an interest in claiming Nobel laureates and Prizes as "theirs"—it's a matter of prestige—but that's simply not how the Nobel Prizes work. This is not like the Olympics where the athletes formally represent their countries, and there is no generally agreed-upon way to assign credit for Nobel Prizes/laureates to universities.

When this question, i.e. how is "affiliated with" judged? was brought up by Testing times in 2008 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive1, the nominator Sephiroth BCR replied It ranges from the University of Chicago, which considers any laureate that walked on the campus to be an affiliated laureate to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which only considers members of the faculty that did their research for their Nobel Prize while at the university. Whatever the university considers "affiliated" is what we're going to use, as anything else 1) would be a WP:V problem 2) would be a WP:OR problem as we would be creating our own system of what constitutes affiliation. That's fair, I suppose, but it means that lists for different universities aren't directly comparable to each other.

I suspect that it was to solve this problem of corresponding lists for different universities not being comparable that the criteria were changed back in 2018—to create a set of lists that all consistently use the same criteria. The intention was good and it may have even been a good idea, but the implementation was unfortunately misguided. The problem is that the effort to come up with criteria that could be applied consistently across all these lists ended up producing a set of criteria that was created by Wikipedia's editors, not by WP:Reliable sources. In other words, the criteria themselves are the result of WP:Original research. Consequently, applying these criteria produces novel content. Not helping matters is the fact that the de facto modus operandi was tracking down laureates' CVs and then applying these WP:OR criteria to determine whether someone should count as affiliated with a particular university or not.

This resulted in us recently having a very long AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation) and then a very long DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21) followed by further discussion on the relevant talk page (Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation), with the eventual outcome being scrapping the WP:OR set of criteria and rewriting List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation from scratch with an entirely different approach that is used by the official Nobel Prize website. This list, i.e. List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, still uses the WP:OR set of criteria however. So what we currently have here is a subpage to a defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.

We recently delisted another of these lists, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1. One of the reasons we did so was the issue of the criteria for the list. My suggestion would be to delist this as well and redirect it to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist As the main editor on most of the Princeton University pages (at least when I have the time), I'd have to agree with the reasons per above. While the Wikipedia editors' attempt from the past was certainly noble, it was WP:Original research. Moreover, if we're going to delist the University of Pennsylvania article, it would seem reasonable to do the same here for both points raised in that AfD and those by the nom here. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University uses the same inclusion criteria as List of Princeton University people. The two pages include graduates, non-graduate students, postdocs, faculty members, and visitors. Delisting this page will be like delisting List of Brigham Young University alumni or List of University of Central Florida alumni or List of Pomona College people. Ber31 (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people. If "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University" were to be deleted/redirected, all the information will have to be added to "List of Princeton University people". That page is already too long; adding all the Nobel laureates will only make the page longer! Nathan Seiberg is included in "List of Princeton University people". He won the Fundamental Physics Prize. By using "Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals" argument, Fundamental Physics Prize are also not awarded to universities; should we remove Seiberg from "List of Princeton University people"? "Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals" is a completely invalid argument. The inclusion criteria for both pages are straightforward: Education and employment (salary, taxes, etc.); they are the basic academic affiliations, which is universally accepted. Here is a brilliant argument by User:Minimumbias: [5] There is absolutely no valid reason to delist or redirect List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University. Ber31 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NOR violation allegation Some editors have falsely accused this list of violating the core policy of WP:NOR. IMO the allegation is false. This list uses the same inclusion criteria as List of Case Western Reserve University people or List of Ohio State University people or similar pages. Those pages include alumni (graduates and attendees), faculty members, postdocs, and visiting professors affiliated with those universities. IMO this website needs a general guideline for "lists of X people". The guideline should explicitly mention that alumni, postdocs and faculty members are acceptable in "lists of X people". When there is a proper guideline, there will be less controversies. Ber31 (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist Alumni is a definable set. Associated is not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  With that type of logic, List of Pomona College people should also be delisted. Ber31 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  User:Guerillero: As per your logic, University of Colorado Denver and Columbia University should also be delisted as "good articles". See University_of_Colorado_Denver#Notable_people or Columbia_University#Notable_people. "Alumni" contains graduates and non-graduate former students. "Faculty" contains researchers (such as postdocs), faculty members and visitors. List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University contains graduates, non-graduate former students, researchers (such as postdocs), faculty members and visitors. The inclusion criteria are the same. A university is an institution for education and research. Thus, alumni of the university, and people who assumed employment level duties at the university, namely teaching university-level courses or performing research, should be included in such lists or alumni/faculty section(s) of university pages. That has been the standard procedure on Wikipedia for a long time. I think you need to think seriously on this issue. 13:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Faculty is also a definable set. Faculty include researchers, full professors and visiting professors. "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University" can also be called "list of Nobel laureates associated with Princeton University as alumni and faculty". Ber31 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rename I have renamed the page as List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty. Alumni is a definable set. Faculty is also a definable set. Problem solved! Ber31 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Update This page was nominated for delisting in November of the last year by TompaDompa. It has been nearly two and a half months, and his rationales are outdated or flawed. List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty isn't a "sub-page" of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" only lists laureates at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" lists all the Nobel laureates who were alumni or served in the faculty of Princeton University. Alumni and faculty are definable sets. The page doesn't include everyone affiliated with Princeton University; for instance, the page doesn't include people who served as administrative staff at Princeton University. After all, the name of the page isn't "list of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty or administrative staff"! "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, just like List of Princeton University people (government) or List of Princeton University people (United States Congress, Supreme Court, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention). Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals is a completely invalid argument. The page doesn't claim that Princeton University has 74 Nobel prizes; the page simply states that 74 Nobel laureates are affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty members.Universities have an interest in claiming Nobel laureates and Prizes as "theirs"—it's a matter of prestige—but that's simply not how the Nobel Prizes work is also a completely invalid argument and a subjective opinion of TompaDompa. Harvard University page claims that eight US presidents has been affiliated with the university as alumni. We can't say that making such claims would give prestige to Harvard or "Harvard has an interest in claiming US presidents as theirs". When we look at the facts objectively, it is clear that Harvard has affiliation with eight US presidents as alumni. As long as there is a reliable source for each entries, there should not be a problem. When it comes down to the WP:OR issue, the inclusion criteria for "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" are straightforward: alumni and faculty. The list uses the same inclusion criteria as List of Harvard University people, List of Princeton University people, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty, List of Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni, or similar pages. As long as the CVs are published by major universities, tracking down laureates' CVs can't be considered as illegitimate. The CVs of laureates that are published by major universities (not blogs) are reliable sources. The arguments of the nominator and editors who "voted" for the delisting of the page have been debunked. There is no valid reason to delist this page. Ber31 (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)