Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons

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

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

Pseud 14

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

Image review: Passed

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

MPGuy2824

• Wikilink the first usage of "postseason".
  • Added link to NBA playoffs.
• "by assistant and former Sonics player Nate McMillan," to "by assistant coach and former Sonics player Nate McMillan,"
  • Fixed.
• According to the legend bold is for winning the championship, but some cells are bold-ed even though the team didn't win the championship in that year. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have removed the bolding from the key but kept in the main table; this practice is similar to many MLB season FLs. SounderBruce 03:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. P.S. Maybe you can add that bolding indicates when the team were conference/division champions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support can't find any issues. Also the NBA expanding again to finally revive this team can't happen soon enough! igordebraga ≠ 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of premiers of Victoria

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Most of them are fine, but the three sub-headers (Took office, etc.) need the !scope=col, and the Term of office cell should use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1 becomes !scope=row rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Along with that, you currently have two cells per row set as the header- the Premier cell should have a | instead of a !.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done –––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Consider moving the Electoral district/constituency to its own column. The name column is quite cluttered right now.
• Consider mentioning that Allan is only the second woman to hold the post.
• If you make the table sortable then List of premiers of Victoria by time in office can just be redirected here as you can get the same information by sorting on the relevant column.
• Don't see any problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824 Thank you for your suggestions. The reason I put the constituencies in the name column was to be consistent with the List of prime ministers of Australia. I am happy to change it, let me know your thoughts. I have now added the fact Jacinta Allan is the 2nd female premier of vic (this edit).

  As discussed in the peer review, making the table sortable isn't possible due to vertical cell mergers with the monarch/governor column and also for when premiers have served multiple, separate, non-consecutive, terms. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The table in the List of prime ministers of Australia is sortable and is a recent FL (from December 2022).
  • Also, to me the governor seems like a ceremonial office and not particularly relevant to this particular list. Maybe the governor/monarch column can be removed. Please take the opinion of other folk before doing this though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In relation to the List of prime ministers of Australia table, when you go and sort the table, it kind of stuffs it up. I have also just discovered vertical merges around the 'Election' columns which will cause further issues if made sortable. I have tried to seek consensus in the past to remove the column without the discussion gaining any traction, I will try again in the articles talk page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and List of prime ministers of New Zealand have the constituency within the name column as well, so there is precedent. Regarding the governor and monarch column, I think its important to keep the governors because the governor directly appoints the premier. I wouldn't mind removing the monarch column though. Steelkamp (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Can the monarch column be changed back to how it was before Special:Diff/1211202532? It looked better and more consistent back then. Steelkamp (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reverted the change. I ask Migs005 to explain why they have made sweeping changes to a page at FLC without discussing with other editors, particularly when the changes have obvious problems like desynchronising governors and premiers. – Teratix ₵ 16:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not aware that the article's at FLC. Comments on the changes noted. No issues with the revert for me. Migs005 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I didn't realise this had been fixed. That was my only comment. Article looks good now. Steelkamp (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by SB19

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

After successfully working on two SB19-related lists, here comes my next offering. This is the list, which I overhauled last February, that documents the awards and nominations received by SB19 since their debut in 2018. They have received well over 100 80 notable nominations from local and international award-giving bodies for the past five years, among which they have won over 70 40 (which I do believe are the most numbers from any Filipino boy/girl group).^{[citation needed]} They are indeed revolutionary because, apart from transforming P-pop, they have claimed multiple "firsts", from being the first Filipino group to chart a single on World Digital Song Sales to being the first Filipino act to be nominated for the Top Social Artist award at the 2021 Billboard Music Awards.

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

Pseud 14

• For FLs and based on Wikipedia:Awards and accolades, I have reservations about the notability of awards such as BreakTudo Awards, Philippine Pop—PPOP Awards, Push Awards, VillagePipol, and therefore should be excluded.

  I get where you are heading about this. However, here's the thing, I am a bit conflicted here, because—though I have seen your works with these types of lists—there are also FLs that list awards with no respective standalone articles on Wikipedia (such as BTS and Exo). These awards have been at least covered with secondary sources (evident for BreakTudo, PPOP, and Push) and have been mentioned by media organizations (VP: [4], [5], [6]), which is why I think they can be considered notable enough for inclusion. – Relayed (t • c) 11:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would refer to the same conclusion made by FLC delegates PresN and TRM on a similar nomination, much more recent than BTS/Exo. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing up a similar discussion. The arguments they brought seem understandable and convincing, I was just hoping there would not be a need to remove some content. In the meantime, I have removed the awards with no standalone articles from the list until someone else develops a consensus regarding the inclusion of such. – Relayed (t • c) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Awards for Music can be linked to PMPC Star Awards for Music

  Done

• Their breakthrough led the band to be awarded with the Favorite Breakthrough Artist of the Year at the 2020 Awit Awards. -- Consider tweaking as this is a bit repetitive, simply put, this led to the band being awarded...

  Done

• Pagsibol, included singles -- included the singles

  Done

• which had multiple nominations, including both nominations for the Song of the Year award at the 2023 Awit Awards. -- this reads repetitive too. consider which earned multiple nominations at 2023 Awit Awards, including Song of the Year for both singles.

  That does read better! Done

• which all won them Awit Awards for -- which won them the Awit Awards

  Done

• Why is there two separate rows for "2024" for Star Awards? If these are all nominations from the same ceremony this should all be lumped into one year.

  These nominations are actually for separate ceremonies. "2024 (1)" is for the 14th ceremony, while "2024 (2)" is for the 15th, which both had released a list of nominations but had not carried out an actual live ceremony (as far as I am aware).

• The boy band also received multiple recognition throughout their career for their artistry and work -- Drop multiple as it reads ambiguous and just say received recognition throughout their career.

  Done

• Wish Group of the Year in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 -- use a range instead of listing each year.

  Done

• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for taking a look and for your comments, Pseud 14! Apologies if I took a while. However, I have addressed everything except for the first point. I have no problem taking out some of the awards listed. Do hear me out with the reasoning I have raised above. If that does not convince you, then I can go ahead and remove its respective parts on the next revision, no problemo. – Relayed (t • c) 11:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All good on the rest, other than the remaining item per my response. I will be holding back making a specific declaration until PresN or more commenters weigh in. Great work on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for replying, Pseud 14! Sorry for taking a while to respond, again. I have addressed your remaining point as per a similar discussion on Coldplay's list. The non-notable awards have been removed, and the infobox and the lead have been tweaked to reflect the changes. Let me know if everything is now up to your standards or if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can now support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the support, Pseud! – Relayed (t • c) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vaughan J.

I'm kinda really doing you a favor in reviewing all of the SB19 FLC/FAC at this point haha. Tables review in a few minutes! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Recipient(s) and nominee(s)" → "Recipient(s)"
• {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} per my last review

Jeez, that was fast! That's all the concerns I have. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vaughan J.! Thanks a lot for taking a look! I have addressed your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 10:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Relayed: Support – nothing else is needed. Next stops: live performances, videography, then the main article! Good luck for those articles in the future! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your support and for your kind words, Vaughan! Will expect you there! – Relayed (t • c) 11:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Wikilink "Awit awards" somewhere in the lead.

  Done

• The phrase "boy band" is used a lot in the lead. Replace some of these with just "band" or "group".

  Done

• In the State honors table, the "Philippines" cell should have the rowgroup scope. The same applies to the "Esquire Philippines" cell in the listicle table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done

Hi, MPGuy2824! Thanks for having a look! I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 08:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Line of Duty

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

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

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

Comments

• "the series primarily filmed in Belfast" => "the series was primarily filmed in Belfast"
• "while Hawes role extended" => "while Hawes' role extended"
• "appeared as a guest star in one episode each of the two following series" => "appeared as a guest star in one episode of each of the two following series"
• "A third of the series successful awards" => "A third of the series' successful awards"
• In the nominee(s) column, anything in quote marks currently sorts erroneously at the top. They should sort based on the first actual word
• Lots of entries for "Line of Duty 2", "Line of Duty 3", etc. I think these should be "Line of Duty series 2", "Line of Duty series 3", etc, as what is there currently could give readers the impression that it was actually branded on screen as "Line of Duty 2", in the manner of, say, "Kung Fu Panda 2", which it wasn't
• I think you need to change the start of the table to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" so the first column isn't oddly bolded
• That's what I got - great work on an article on a great show! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Turns out it was actually the lack of row scopes that was making the first column oddly bold, so I added them. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same for rows.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "formers collapse" to "former's collapse"
  • "and first aired on BBC" to "and aired on BBC"
  • "The remaining three series moved to BBC One, comprising 19 episodes, from 2017 to 2021" The order of the subclauses is a bit weird. Copying the order in the previous sentence would work better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sgubaldo

• Wikilink Line of Duty above the infobox.
• "Over the course of the series an overarching........" ==> "Over the course of the series, an overarching........"
• Add a full-stop at the end of the sentences in Notes b, c and d.
• Freesat Awards are missing a reference; this is the best thing I could find, but I didn't look super hard.
• Ref 68 is missing the author: Eleanor Noyce.
• "...later ITV Studios following the formers collapse." ==> "...later ITV Studios following the former's collapse."

Great work! Sgubaldo (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Radio Times source for the missing award. Everything else is done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two more very minor things:

• Wikilink 'Awards' in "Writers' Guild of Great Britain Awards" since it redirects to the awards section of the page.
• Wikilink 'Awards' in "British Academy Cymru" to redirect to the academy's page.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support Sgubaldo (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 02:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Timeline of the 1993 Pacific hurricane season

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

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

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

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

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Source review comments:

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

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

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

Sorry for the delay, I didn't realized I hadn't responded to this. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

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

Hi PresN, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention! I've replaced the semicolons with level 6 headers (the header size which looks identical to semicolon headers/bold text) and added {{TOC limit|3}} higher up the page. It's a different approach from the last few timeline FLs, which simply use bold text, but I figured it was one worth trying. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like WikiCleanerBot didn't like this and converted the level 6 headers into level 4 headers... I think I'm going to keep it that way for now, in the hopes that it would make for easier accessibility than bold text. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• which tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin -- worth linking basin (if the terminology has an article)
• That's all I could find. Really well-written and well-explained lead for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. It summarizes the timeline quite well. I don't think I have any more to add. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm blushing a little bit from that second bullet! There is indeed an article for the basin terminology; I've incorporated a piped link to tropical cyclone basins. Thank you very much for your feedback, Pseud 14. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

• Images used have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed and are from reliable sources (i.e. NORA and NASA)
• Images have succinct captions, relevant, and provide context for its use in the timeline. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• Lead paragraph2: If you can somehow state that Manzanillo is in Mexico within that sentence, it would save a click.
• wikilink the first usage of "tropical wave" at Jul 14.
• Jul 16: outhern to southern.
• Sep 6: is there a good wikilink for "remnant low"?
• Couldn't find any other issues with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you MPGuy2824 for the review. I believe that I've addressed all of your points; I'm a little embarrassed to have not caught that "outhern" typo sooner! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

SZA discography

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

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

Dylan620

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

Some comments:

• The lede feels a bit short, even for someone like SZA with a relatively small discography. It jumps right into a rough chronology of her works without providing much of a background for the beginning of her career. I looked back through solo discographies that have been featured within the past year or so and noticed that those of Angeline Quinto and Esmée Denters both give a brief description early on of how their respective careers began. In SZA#2011–2014: Career beginnings and EPs, it is mentioned that SZA met Top Dawg reps in 2011; after See.SZA.Run and S, she signed with the label, which then released Z. Maybe something about this could be incorporated into the opening paragraph?
• There's a bit too much early mention of SOS for my liking. Mentioning that Ctrl was a constant presence on the Billboard 200 even through the release of SOS is pertinent and reasonable, but the final sentence of the first paragraph puts SOS's inclusion on the Rolling Stone top 500 list into focus before there's any mention of what she released in between the two albums. It jumps forward to 2023 when the surrounding text details the 2017–18 timeframe. The sentence itself is written just fine, but it feels like something that should be at or near the end of the lede instead of where it is right now.
• ...and has charted for over five subsequent years: Replacing "over" with "more than" would work better here.
• SZA appeared in some film soundtracks: in → on
• The expected upcoming release of Lana should probably be mentioned in the lede.
• Since there is prose later on pertaining to unreleased songs, I would recommend adding something about this to the lede as well.
• The table in §Music videos needs a caption, both per MOS:DTAB and in keeping with the rest of the tables.
• To maintain consistency with the rest of the table captions, a comma should be added after the "list of [release type]s" clauses in the captions for the second and third tables in §Albums; the word "selected" should also be added to the second table caption.
• For whatever reason, the UK Singles Chart source (ref 17 at time of writing) makes no mention of "No Love"; however, that song's UK chart position is verified by the song's page on the UK Charts' website.
• Sources need to be added to the entries for "Easy Bake" and "Never Lose Me" in the table at §Guest appearances – I was told in a previous FLC (granted, this was 7 years ago) that wikilinking the articles isn't enough to verify the information.

Everything else looks great. Aside from the MV section, the tables are all properly formatted. I am impressed by the usage of hover text to elucidate the meaning of each chart initialism. IIRC it is unusual for discography articles to have prose in any sections other than the lede, but §Unreleased songs is a stellar example of how it can be done. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, @Dylan620. I hope everything has been addressed. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. The only additional improvement I can think of is that you might want to expand the MV table caption a bit to mention other column fields, such as the years and directors. Aside from that, this looks just about good to go. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

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

• "From 2017 to 2022, as SZA prepared for her second studio album's release, she appeared on a few film soundtracks" --> You could probably remove "a few"
  • Good point; done
• "with 3.172 million units sold" --> Is it normal to use three decimal places in these types of articles?
  • I am unsure, but it is the figure the cited source uses, so I am inclined to keep it
• "The next release after SOS is Lana" --> Does it make more sense to say "will be"?
  • "Release" here is meant to be a noun and is taken to be synonymous with album/project. The sentence is true as you read it, so "is" makes sense here
• "Originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, Lana evolved into its own project, which..." --> Lana was originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, but evolved into its own project, which...
  • Done

@ZooBlazer Responses made. Thank you for your comments. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support -- ZooBlazer 05:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passes

• File:SZA14 (13458538654).jpg is the only image used.

  Properly licensed

  Use in article obviously makes sense

  Usually with FLC and FAC reviews I prefer alt text to be more than "Refer to caption", but I'll leave it up to you to keep or change it.

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

Meant to say this passes. The alt text thing isn't something to hold it back from becoming a FL. -- ZooBlazer 05:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

• Reference 7/8 has a list of authors, I know it's impossible to list them all, but a few of them followed by "et al." could be utilized. See Template:Cite web for documentation.
  • The Rolling Stone article's byline credits the entire publication, so I have decided not to add the author parameter. I hope this is reasonable.
• Billboard should be linked in references 35, 36, 40, 101, 102, and 104 for consistency with the rest of uses from that source.
  • Done
• References 185 and 186 have authors that can be listed.
  • Listed
• Only 176 of 194 sources are archived, it may be useful to run IABot here and see if it's picks up any additional archives. If it doesn't, you may need to manually archive some. I know not everything (particularly videos) can be archived easily, but a few of the sources I checked that weren't archived were from direct URL's. Those should be archived whether it be done automatically or manually.
  • Unfortunately I cannot archive them; all (but one) are generated by a template which does not have archive parameters for most use cases. The same goes for [22] which is "Sveriges Officiella Topplista" because it is used for new peaks which constantly are updated.
• Spot-checked 10 random sources and they confirmed they're cited for.

Only a few notes. Great work on the list! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful source review. I will get to this within the week, when I am less busy with real-life matters. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho, I have provided my responses to everything. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the notes you have provided, and the updates have been made. The source review passes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of University of Texas at Austin presidents

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different... Normally I work on TV-related lists, but this was an interesting dive into a different type of list. This was modeled off existing FLs of university leaders, though there is less of a consistent format across them so I am open to suggestions for changes here. I've also aimed to provide a brief list of other offices for each individual as context – in the process of finding sources for that, I was able to address two redlinks in the article, and the rest should follow in time. I've striven to make sense of conflicting dates in several places and hope that my research has been thorough enough to support this list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The current president is Jay Hartzell, having served in the position since 2020" - I think "The current president is Jay Hartzell, who has served in the position since 2020" would be better
• Is there an appropriate link for "comptroller"? It's possibly a commonly understood word in US English but I personally (as a British person) have no idea what it means (we probably just call it something different :-))
• If you sort the table based on any other column and then resort based on the first column, the row where the number is a dash gets "stuck" at the top. You need to use a sorting template to make it sort between 17 and 18.
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude: All done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "Ref." to "Ref(s)" since most rows have more than one reference.
• Per MOS:RELTIME, the phrase "To date" isn't recommended.
• Consider adding that Leslie Waggener was the first president to his image caption.
• No issues on table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPGuy2824: I kept Waggener's current caption to be consistent with other images – not all of the presidents shown have a similar "special" fact, it's just whoever had free images. For the header, Template:Refh points here to justify that format – I changed it for now, but let me know if you think it should switch back for consistency with that (somewhat weak) consensus. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding "Ref(s)", it looks like there was some consensus to use the template, so feel free to change that back, if you wish. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look at this older FL nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chompy Ace

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by TV Patrol regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 08:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks

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

This will be list #7 for me in this series and, provided all goes well, #27 in the series to be promoted. Nothing really different about this list, continues on using the same format as the other first-round pick lists that I've nominated. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
• I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together
• "The Titans used an addition first-round pick" => "The Titans used an additional first-round pick"
• On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"?
• That's it, I think. Great work once again!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for the review @ChrisTheDude!

  • Example text – Fixed
  • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together – I'm torn on this. These paragraphs are broken up the same way in the other lists that I've worked on and I'd like them to be consistent.
  • Example text – Done.
  • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"? – It's meant to continue off of the point of the previous sentence, in that, a first-round selection that was chosen by the team actually chose to sign elsewhere. I've added a couple commas that I hope make this slightly clearer.

  Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the last point, I would simplify it to "The team's first-round pick in 1966, Tommy Nobis, also chose to sign with the NFL instead". Currently the use of the word "additional" implies that they had more than one pick in 1966 (a "main" one and then an "additional" one - does that make sense?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's much better wording, thank you for the suggestion @ChrisTheDude. Fixed now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

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

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and review @Pseud 14! I've made the appropriate changes :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another great list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC OlifanofmrTennant

Ref 48 lists SB nation and Gang Green Nation seperatly as publisher and work/website this is the only citation which does so. Additionally this seems to be a blog site. The about page is just a list of writers. SB nation is a blog hosting network so is this source reliable? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I could have technically listed Gang Green Nation under Vox Media, but thought SB Nation was more appropriate. I did that because it quite clearly advertises itself as a subcommunity of SB Nation. As for the reliability of SB Nation and its subsites, it was discussed most recently here in 2023, and the result was no consensus. Despite it including "Blog" in its name, it's actually a widely used sports news site. Given what was being verified, and that it wasn't the only source used to help verify said fact, it should be an adequate source. Never the less, I've replaced it with two others. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up to make sure all feedback has been adequately addressed @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

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

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

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

Thanks so much for taking a look @Gonzo fan2007! I very much appreciate the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harper J. Cole

• The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article.
• Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture.
• The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page.
• Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor.
• I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 (they were Houston when they made the trades). I know that humans who have changed their names are referred to by the current one throughout an article, but I don't remember seeing that for an organisation, and articles such as 1960 Houston Oilers season use the name from that time.
• Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks"
• allowed them to select a single player within a designated region and teams were allowed to select a single player from a designated region Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity?
• Tennessee loaned quarterback Jacky Lee to the Denver Broncos (for the 1964 and 1965 seasons) in exchange for their 1965 first-round selection (No. 2 overall), defensive tackle Bud McFadin, and cash. The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article. – Yeah I went back and forth on which to include. I do think you're right that it's better to use that one. Switched.
• Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture. – That's embarrassing. Fixed.
• The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page. – I've added some links.
• Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor. – I've added some links.
• I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 – I get exactly where you're coming from on this. I've worked on 12 of these lists and I've internally battled about what fits best for other articles as well, such as the Cardinals and Patriots. I've approached it from the perspective of the reader, and from a point of view that we're referring to the team as a whole, not necessarily their name at the time. I'm open to rewriting these, but I'm not sure of the best way to do so while making it easy for readers to follow. Do you have any suggestions?
• Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks" – In that case we'd want to name all three names they'd gone by I imagine. I'd like to hear your answer to my above response before I implement this. I only want to wait because I'm considering how/if I should implement this change across all of the relevant pages I've worked on in this series.
• Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity? – So, those are actually two separate statements. The idea is that each team got to select whatever player they wanted within their region before the next phase of the draft started. After that phase of the draft, the territorial selections, teams agreed upon the top 8 players at each position, which were then randomly assigned to teams. So each time agreed on who the best players were at positions and randomly got one. The only selection ACTUALLY made by any team during the 1960 AFL draft was their territorial selection, the rest were randomly assigned to them after sort of "tiers" were decided upon.
• The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown. – I went based on the language that the Broncos used, but that's a fair criticism. I've changed it to "an unspecified sum of money".

Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination @Harper J. Cole:, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light.
• With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames, but that doesn't work in this case. I can see four options.

1. The current style, with "Tennessee" used throughout.
2. Use "Tennessee", but add an explanatory note each time from 1960-96
3. Use "Tennessee", but add a single explanatory note, perhaps on the table title.
4. Use "Houston" for 1960-96.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:

• With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light. – I'll mull this over a bit, look over what I might have stashed away in a folder of possibly useful bookmarks, and see if I can figure out some better wording.
• With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames – I could use the nickname for the Cardinals and Patriots, but I'm trying to apply the same formatting and style to all of these lists that I've worked on. As you said though, this wouldn't work for this list (or the KC list).
• I think, if I were to go the route of changing the styling, I'd probably lean towards option 3. I do make the point of identifying that the team changed names in the lead, but I also recognize that adding a note can still improve the article and make things more clear than they currently are. I'll give this a bit of thought and send you a ping tomorrow for you to review.

Thanks again for taking the time on this! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:

Current: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. To start the 1960 AFL draft, each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players, and repeated the process until all 53 roster spots were filled.

Proposed: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. The first round of the 1960 AFL draft was territorial selections. Each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a pre-agreed upon designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players. This process was repeated until all 53 roster spots were filled.

Do you think that's more clear, easy to digest, and understandable?

As for the table title, I think it'd be rather janky if I went with "Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans first-round picks". Do you think a note stating "Previously known as the Houston Oilers (1960–1996) and Tennessee Oilers (1997–1998)." next to the table title would be adequate? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Yes, I think both those are fine. That gives ample opportunities for readers to understand the situation, even if they skip over the intro and go straight to the table. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole: All of the changes have been made. I think/hope I've addressed all of your helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks—Supported --Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1991

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 49th article in this series for your delectation. In this year one artist reached number one for the first time after 15 years on the chart and another act reached number one for the first time who was actually aged 15. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• Freddie Jackson moved into the number-one position - in every instance in the article number one is written without the hyphen
  • Done. In the wording "number-one position", it is being used as an adjective rather than a noun and sources seem to be split as to whether it needs a hyphen in such cases but I changed it anyway
    • Thanks for the clarification. (I initially thought it was the opposite, at least from the sources I've looked up). Will take note for the future lists.
• Hi-Five's "I Like the Way (The Kissing Game)" - more of a consistency thing as well, perhaps it should be written single first then artist, as how you listed the other singles on this last sentence.
  • Done
• That’s all I could find. Great work as usual on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: - thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Solid work as always! Support. Also, if you have spare time and interest, wondering if I could get some feedback on the other side on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
• Images are relevant and have succinct captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• All sources are appropriate, and in line with those used in similar featured lists. Nothing that needs a citation is lacking one. I couldn't see any issues with formatting. Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

I came here from my own FLC, and saw the other Hot R&B singles from 1990 already had several supports, so I thought I'd review this instead.

• So my first nitpick is about the paragraph arrangement in the lead, since that's the primary area of prose in the list, and thus should be subject to scrutiny. The first paragraph is rather short. Just throwing it out there, I'd love if the first charting one was included there (to signify the start of the year), and then the bit about Shanice's "I Love Your Smile", since this all would be a logical end to the first paragraph:

• No song spent more than two weeks in the top spot during 1991, although Shanice's "I Love Your Smile", which spent the last two weeks of the year atop the chart, would extend its run by two further weeks in 1992.

• "With the exception of Gerald Levert, who would achieve a second solo number one in 1992,[4] none of the acts to top the chart twice during the year would achieve another R&B number one after 1991, and Color Me Badd, Hi-Five, the Rude Boys, and the Winans siblings all achieved the only two R&B number ones of their respective careers during the year." - that's a lot for one sentence. I'd rather the bit about Gerald Levert go with the other Levert info in the 2nd paragraph, and maybe simplify what you're saying here.
  • All of the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Two times, you say "a number", as if it's some vague unknown term.

• A number of acts reached number one for the first and only time in 1991
• "Can You Stop the Rain" by Peabo Bryson was one of a number of tracks to spend two weeks at number one in 1991.

• I think both would be improved if it said what number that was. Otherwise, I like how the images are complete sentences, which is why they all end in a fullstop. Periodt.
  • All of the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG, Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now) is that song?! I think you need to mention how important that song is in popular culture. I just put it on, that song is still relevant and beloved in 2024. Give it some love.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinda along similar lines, I feel that Summertime is pretty iconic, but IDK if it's definitely worth mentioning that Will Smith would later have a #1 hit later on (Gettin' Jiggy wit It)
  • Gettin' Jiggy wit It wasn't an R&B #1, it only got to #6..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• And similar for Emotions. According to this, Mariah Carey hits her highest note in this song. It's probably trivial, and maybe not worth mentioning, it's just a song that I knew instantly when I saw it.
  • Definitely trivial, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed a few redirects in the song titles. I noticed that some of the links are also redirects in the artist names (I saw it for Pebbles and stopped checking), so would you mind double checking the artist names for redirects?
  • There's no requirement to fix redirects but I think I got them all anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately these all are minor. I imagine I'll be able to support without much work. Let me know what you think about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: - thanks for your review. All addressed, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the quick response! I'm happy to support now. Yea, there was no requirement to fix the redirects, but I was trying to find *anything* to nitpick the article about, in a way to show how good it already is. Really appreciate the fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

• "each of whom had two number ones, tied for the highest number of weeks in the top spot during the year, each spending three weeks" --> could this be slightly reworded to not have "each" used twice so close in the same sentence?
• "would prove to be the only time he even reached the top 10" --> Remove "even"
• "was the act's only R&B chart-topper but continued to be popular for decades afterwards" --> add "it" or something similar after but

That's all from me. These were mostly nitpicks as the article looks great already, so if you disagree with the comments, not a big deal. Great job with the article. -- ZooBlazer 02:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: - done the first and third ones. I left the second one because I was trying to make the point that you might expect an act who started their career with a bang with a number one single to have subsequent tracks get close to that position but in Washington's case he never even managed to get into the top 10 again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince in the lead and list should be DJ Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince to match the casing of the article
• See also section – update the link from List of number-one R&B albums of 1991 (U.S.) to List of Billboard number-one R&B albums of 1991
• See also section – update the link from List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1991 to List of Billboard Hot 100 number ones of 1991
• Could you add {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}} to the top of the article, under the short description? That way if refs are added later on they use the proper date formatting.
  • @Hey man im josh: - all of the above done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job as always Chris! Side note, it's been bugging me today that I don't fully understand the inconsistencies in some of these Billboard namings. Some of them are using a hyphen in "number-one". Is it "number ones" and "number-one" as a standard? Is there a de facto correct usage? I'd love to find something to better understand the naming conventions of these various Billboard articles. If so, I can do some cleanup on the article namings when I get time. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be "number one" when used as a noun and "number-one" when used as an adjective. So "Mariah has had lots of number ones" vs "Mariah has had lots of number-one singles". That's my understanding, anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, thanks. I see that you made the changes as well so I'm going to note my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers general managers

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

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

Pseud 14

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

Image review : Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are relevant and provides context for its use in the tables
• Images are appropriately licensed as PD, as well as AGF on self-published image. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pseud 14, I have implemented both of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

• "In the year's" to "In the years".
• "Team record" should have scope as colgroup. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPGuy2824, both comments have been addressed. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support promotion. If interest and time permit, please have a look at this older FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 7 – Is there any reason you used a hyphen instead of a vertical dash here, like the target uses?
• Ref 8 – Change to cite magazine and change website to a blusher of Sports Illustrated
• Ref 10 – I notice it's not like other references to the Green Bay Press-Gazette website, in that, it mentions USA Today beside the author's name. I understand they're owned by USA Today, but it's unclear to me whether USA Today should be listed as the agency in this instance. Any thoughts on that?
• Ref 15 – Missing publisher
• Could you add the {{Use American English|date=April 2024}} and {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}} templates to the top of the article under the short description? That way if more refs are added they'll be properly formatted (date wise).

That's all I've got, good stuff as always Gonzo, even if I hate the Packers! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, all addressed. Regarding Ref 10, the difference is that the other GBPG articles are from Newspapers.com. I don't usually include USAToday in these types of refs, just too deep info when the newspaper and link is already included, imho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Ref 16 as an example doesn't include that bit that ref 10 does. I agree and understand about not including the parent company, but I was wondering if 10 should be treated as re-posting a story from a wire service instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, my understanding is that USA Today is not a wire service, so "agency=" wouldn't be appropriate. I could do "via=" if you really want, but just to note I haven't done that before. I think if there wasn't an author listed, I would probably agree with you. But I view this more as Todd McMahon writes for the whole network, not just the newspaper. The newspaper is just differentiating between an in-house newspaper sportswriter (like Richard Ryman). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: No, I won't ask you to do "via=" here. I think I agree with your view that Todd McMahon writes for the whole network and that it's just differentiating.

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe

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

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

MPguy2824's comments

• "One site is transnational, the Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is shared with Zambia." seems a bit odd. you can either replace the comma with a semi-colon OR go with "Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls is the only transnational site (it is shared with Zambia).
• Consider linking "dry season".
• " In dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with the predators such as lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as Nile crocodile." to " In the dry season, the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities, including the African elephant, hippopotamus, African buffalo, waterbuck, zebra, together with predators such as the lion, leopard, cheetah, as well as the Nile crocodile."
• "Eastern black rhinoceros lived here at the time of inscription but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere." to "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to live here at the time of inscription, but the remaining animals have since been moved for safekeeping elsewhere."
• Will do a full prose review later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Will wait for a full review before fixing, easier this way :) Tone 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• with trade links to China, Persia, and Kilwa Kisiwani. Kilwa Kisiwani doesn't seem to as important as the other two large areas. If it is important to keep, then add ", in present-day Tanzania" to the end of that sentence.
• "abandoned around 1450" to "abandoned around the year 1450"
• "Like the latter, it was built in dry stone technique in a similar architectural style" to "Like the latter, it was built using the dry stone technique and in a similar architectural style".
• "and was an important regional centre of trade, with porcelain form China and Spain found among archaeological remains" - split this part into a new sentence and correct "form" to "from".
• "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates massive waterfalls, with the width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and the maximum height of 108 m (354 ft)." to "Along the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia, the Zambezi river creates a massive waterfall, with a width of 1,708 m (5,604 ft) and a maximum height of 108 m (354 ft).".
• "Falling water creates" to "The falling water creates".
• "created in millions of years of erosion" to "created over millions of years of erosion".
• Wikilink "Kopje".
• "in different manners" to "in different ways".
• "the life of foraging people" to "the life of the foraging people". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed all, thanks! I changed the link of Kilwa Kisiwani to the Kilwa Sultanate, since this was a power that ruled most of the east African coast at the time and is thus important. Tone 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the predators" - remove "the".
  • "Kilwai Sultanate." to "Kilwa Sultanate, on the east coast of Africa."
  • "cut into a basalt rock" - Remove the "a"
  • See MOS:CIRCA and use in all the places where it applies (I noticed 2). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, thanks. I haven't been using the MOS:CIRCA style earlier but it is convenient for future reference :) Tone 15:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Mana Pools are" => "The Mana Pools are"
• "the floodplains are an important refuge to large mammal communities" => "the floodplains are an important refuge for large mammal communities"
• "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to lived here" => "Eastern black rhinoceroses used to live here"
• "Matobo Hills feature" => "The Matobo Hills feature"
• "representing one of the densest concentration" => "representing one of the densest concentrations"
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! Not sure what are you suggesting with the rhinoceroses? Tone 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Take the d off the end of "lived" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, silly me :D Fixing now. Tone 21:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of games by Supermassive Games

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

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

Comments

• "The studio published their first game, Big Match Striker in September 2010" => "The studio published their first game, Big Match Striker, in September 2010"

  Done

• "Supermassive worked on multiple games that utilized" - as it's a British company, that last word should be spelt "utilised"

  Done

• "both of which released in 2010" => "both of which were released in 2010"

  Done

• "In 2012, the studio partnered with BBC" => "In 2012, the studio partnered with the BBC"

  Done

• "BBC announced the decision" => "The BBC announced the decision"

  Done

• "However, another partnership game with BBC" => "However, another partnership game with the BBC"

  Done

• "releasing two spin-off titles; Until Dawn: Rush of Blood (2016) and The Inpatient (2018) for PlayStation VR, Sony's virtual reality headset" => "releasing two spin-off titles, Until Dawn: Rush of Blood (2016) and The Inpatient (2018), for PlayStation VR, Sony's virtual reality headset"

  Done

• "The first game, Man of Medan, released in August 2019" => "The first game, Man of Medan, was released in August 2019"

  Done

• "Supermassive released the standalone game, The Quarry in 2022" => "Supermassive released the standalone game The Quarry in 2022"

  Done

• Titles which begin with "The" should sort based on the next word in the title

  Done

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

In addition to Chris's comments above

• Pete served as CEO -- I think CEO needs to be written in full (lower case)

  Done

• BAFTA Award for Orginal Property -- perhaps it should specify that it is the BAFTA Games Award for Original Property (also typo on original)

  Done and fixed

• for PS VR - should be written in full (since you write second instances in full too, from what it looks like i.e. PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4), or if using acronyms, it should be consistent.

  Changed it so only the first instances are written in full

• Supermassive released PS5 -- same as above

  See above

• Initially the games -- comma after initially

  Done

• Ref(s) = Reference(s) in the table title

  Isn't that what it shows? It says reference(s) when clicking on ref(s). Or are you talking about something else?

I made the edit - it says references instead of reference(s) (sorry for the nitpick)

• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Dont use px sizes (use "upright=numeric value" instead)

  Done

• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images are relevant
• Images have alt text. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I made a couple edits so it's quicker. Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 Thanks for the support! For some reason I was reading the reference thing as already saying reference(s), which is why I was so confused. -- ZooBlazer 18:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happens to the best of us! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

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

Support by Chompy Ace

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by TV Patrol regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Since this has substantial support and seems to be missing a source review, thought I'd strike this from the pending list. Version reviewed

Formatting

• Fn 17 - Author last name should be Khan
• Fn 41 - link Supermassive Games as you did with every instance.

Reliability

• As far as I can tell, the sources in question seem to be professional and from well-circulated sites. At the same time, most of the sources I've found here were also largely used in your recent FA (The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes) which checks out the reliability and quality criteria. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• Fn 2 - ok
• Fn 13 - ok
• Fn 25 - ok
• Fn 34 - ok
• Fn 44 - ok
• Fn 54 - ok
• Fn 65 - ok

Great work overall, just a couple of formatting fixes. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14 Thanks for the source review and for catching those mistakes. Both have been fixed. -- ZooBlazer 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That completes source review. Passed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of erinaceids

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

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

Comments

• "Erinaceidae is an family" => "Erinaceidae is a family"
• "A member of this family is [....] and include" - doesn't seem to be grammatically correct
• Wikilink arthropod? Slightly obscure term.....
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks! --PresN 19:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

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

Following up as promised:

• I'm a little concerned that File:Erinaceus amurensis.jpg lacks authorship information, and the source URL is a dead link. I was able to find archived versions of the site, but I can't figure out where the image would be. I did find a potential alternative on Commons, but the little critter's face isn't clearly visible because it's pointed down away from the camera – could that still be workable?

• Swapped- I agree, the lack of author information or direct link seems suspect

• Not a dealbreaker but I think A. albiventris and A. algirus could be represented by higher-resolution images. I found an excellent A. albiventris photo on Commons. There's also this A. algirus photo that I just cropped from a larger upload (although I do love the belly-up pose in the current photo).

• Swapped both

• Alt text looks good across the board.
• With the exception of the aforementioned E. amurensis photo, licensing and authorship check out for every image used.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Swapped all, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prob – looks good to me! My only remaining comment is that the E. roumanicus range looks more like it's in blue than gray, though I'm wondering if that's just a matter of perception. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Changed to blue- that's actually what it says in the article, it just looks more gray to me on my screen? It's blueish gray, either works. --PresN 13:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

• Reminding me of the fact that I have not done any bird lists in a while.
• "A member of this family [...] includes" is still ungrammatical.

• Fixed again

• Conversion error on the 1 cm tail multiple times throughout the article.

• I'm not sure on this- "1–3 cm (0–1 in)" is a little odd, but 1 cm is almost 0 in. The tails are between 0 and 1 in, just not actually 0. Do you have a suggestion?

• Why isn't the 2023 study splitting H. suillus into 6 spp included? Also, you've missed linking the article for the nominate ssp in the list.

• This list (and all of them) follow the WP:MAMMAL standard of "use MSW3's taxonomy, unless both the IUCN and the ASM agree on a change". The IUCN, however, is much more conservative about changes than the ASM- just because a paper is published with a taxonomy revision doesn't mean that it follows it (yet). Unfortunately, wikipedia editors often split up articles based on individual papers instead of following that guideline, so it doesn't always align. Linked the Javan ssp, though.

• Bornean short-tailed gymnure has an image of a live specimen, see that article.

• Image updated.

• Yeah, that's all I got. AryKun (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied inline. --PresN 15:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You could increase the number of sigfigs in the convert template and see if it helps? AryKun (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @AryKun: Done; not 100% on it, but it does solve the "0 in" issue. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support on the basis of prose from me. AryKun (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ZooBlazer

The article looks great overall, so I have little to say besides that the IUCN red list link for File:Atelerix albiventris range map.png gives a "page cannot be found". -- ZooBlazer 07:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: updated, thanks! --PresN 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

I came here from my own nature-themed FLC, so figured, why not review a list about some cute little critters?

So some random spotchecking and bits:

• Erinaceidae is one of four families in the order Eulipotyphla.

• This does not appear to be sourced.

• Added

• Should "order" be linked? You linked family and genus (genera).

• Done

• "The twenty-four extant species" - any reason you spell it out? Generally, numbers above ten are spelled as numbers. I take it because you also have two, five, eight, and give, correct?

• Yeah, it's just to match the rest of the sentence.

• Ref 1 appears to be down

• It's frequently down for some reason, but it's not dead

• Should conventions be beneath Classification? Or am I just reading things out of order? The Convention seems to be describing what's in the table, right?

• The pattern for these lists is Conventions then Classification, because if there's any extinct species/subspecies (after 1500) Conventions explains the dagger symbol and that 1500CE cutoff; there aren't any for this family, but I'd like to keep the pattern across the lists.

• Is there any way to make it a bit more apparent that the E. europaeus map is focused on Europe and New Zealand? Like, is there any reason it includes the western hemisphere?

• Will crop down to exclude the empty Americas; I've requested autopatrol rights on commons as right now I can't update an image I didn't upload.

• Obligatory complaint that there aren't pictures for every species, but I'm assuming you've tried finding a free version of them?

• Yep, I do my best, but getting free images for east/southeast asian species is frequently challenging.

All in all, it's a good read, and is informative. I was nitpicky about sourcing and such, so I hope my comments aren't too difficult to address. Kudos to your work, @PresN:. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had a feeling those would be your responses for a few of them. Since the picture being cropped is a fairly minimal thing, I'm happy to support now. Thanks for making sure we have high-quality science lists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm currently the only active FLC closer, doing an IAR close of my own nomination as promoted. --PresN 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]

List of Cobra Kai episodes

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

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

Comments

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

  All done. The sentence is still accurate, per the template instructions that date should only be updated when new episodes air/release. That is the release date of the most recent season. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. For the template you're using (in the season lists), visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the Episode table template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 03:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added, thanks for the reminder! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer

• this was delayed to 2024 - The season was delayed to 2024
• the end of the first while Thomas Ian Griffith - Add a comma after first
• As of September 9, 2022, 50 episodes of Cobra Kai have been released, concluding the fifth season. - This can be moved to the beginning of the episodes section.
• It should also be sourced.

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

I've addressed your first two points as well as the last one. I'm hoping the third one won't keep you from supporting? I'll move it if I have to, but it's common practice across most List of Episode pages to use this template near the end of the lead. See [18], [19], [20], and [21] which are all featured lists and have this sentence in a similar location. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Support -- ZooBlazer 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Ireland women's cricket team record by opponent

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

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

Just a few prose suggestions from someone unfamiliar with the topic and FLCs generally

• Unclear as to why the words "Full Member" are capitalised - when I follow that link the words are not capitalised.

Done.

• "meaning the Irish women's team" -> "meaning cricket teams"? Given that you mention cricket in the general sense at the start of the sentence.

Done.

• "being governed by the Cricket Ireland."

Done.

• "They have the fifth most defeats for any team in this format." -> "They have the fifth most defeats of any team in this format."

Done.

• "They have played the highest number of matches (25) against the Netherlands" -> "They have played their highest number of matches (25) against the Netherlands". This helps with clarity. I would also shift the bracketed number to the end of the sentence for better flow.

Done.

• They also have been most successful against the same team, winning 23 WODI matches against them. -> The word also is adding nothing here imo, and then doesn't sound repetitive in the third sentence about the Netherland, though again, I would shift the bracketed number to the end of the sentence.

Done.

• Ireland made their debut in Women's Test cricket on 30 July 2001 against Pakistan" -> "Ireland made their debut in Women's Test cricket on 30 July 2001, against Pakistan,". This helps to separate the introductory time element from the main clause.

Done.

• "an innings" -> I presume the wording here is an inning?

Not done. Perhaps, you're not familiar with cricket. But it is usually said as "1st innings", "by an innings". The article Innings also uses "an innings" at the very beginning. For direct example, see Irish cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2022–23#1st Test.

• "Although the ICC awarded permanent Test status to all full member women's teams in April 2021, it was the only Women's Test match played by Ireland" -> This sentence is exceptionally clunky. First of all, "was" isn't true, as it remains the case. I would consider rewording to something like "In April 2021 the Ireland Women's Cricket Team was awarded permanent Test status, despite the match with Pakistan being Ireland's only Test match. This is because the ICC awarded permanent Test status to all full member women's teams." <- what I have written here is not perfect, and I wouldn't stand by it, but I do think what is in the article is in need of a change.

Done.

• Which is more correct? "the shorter version of international cricket" or just "short form cricket"? I have no idea but the latter makes more sense to me and is the article title.

Done.

• So far the article has been clear on whether it was Ireland of the Irish women's team. Is this Ireland's first debut in short form cricket or the Irish women's team's debut? Is it necessary to specify at home?

Done. Added "women's team" and removed "at home".

• "They have been the second most unsuccessful team in the format, both in terms of matches won as well as winning percentage, among the full member teams." -> "The have been the second most unsuccessful team in the format among the full member teams, both in terms of matches won as well as winning percentage."

Done.

• "They have recorded the highest number of wins (13) against the Netherlands in the format." - This sentence is strange to me because you don't specify format in the previous sentence. I think the two sentences could be reworked.

Done.

• "Among the full member countries, they have defeated Zimbabwe most often (6)" -> Lack of units, 6 what? (times).

Done.

• "Ireland women Test cricket record by opponent" + "Ireland women One Day International record by opponent" + "Ireland women Twenty20 International record by opponent" -> women's?

Done.

• Should this list feature the Irish cricket flag?

No, I don't think it should not feature any flag, as other similar featured lists don't contain- New Zealand women's national cricket team record by opponent.

Xx78900 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx78900, I have fixed the necessary issues you mentioned. Please check it and reply here to state whether you support the nomination or not. Thank you for your feedback. Robo^Cric Let's chat 22:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the long delay in response - I'm unfamiliar with the Featured List criteria so wouldn't feel comfortable adding a support vote, sorry, but I will express satisfaction that you have addressed all of the issues I found in the prose. Xx78900 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

• There's a fairly evident copy & paste error where it says "Year of the first match between New Zealand and the listed opponent" ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ChrisTheDude I am sorry for the error and I have corrected it. Please check it now. Robo^Cric Let's chat 01:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

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

  @ChrisTheDude Done. Fixed all. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Cric editor (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Fade258 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AA

@RoboCric: Just a few suggestions:

• Maybe capitalise "full member" → "Full Member" this is often done, but it's neither here nor there, up to you!
• There was a bit when I looked late last night which mentioned "international arena" and I was going to suggest changing that to "international cricket", but it seems to have been removed from the prose.
• Ref #1, this needs the publication date added.
• Ref #4, is this available on Trove (or elsewhere)? If so, could it be linked into the article? If on Trove, an issue and page number(s) would be a nice addition to the reference.
  • This reference also needs Template:Cite news to be used.
• Ref #8 needs to have the author to be attributed and the publication date added.
• Ref #14 links here. Can the original article be linked, or has it been deleted?
• Ref #15, same as above.
• Any CricketArchive references need "|url-access=subscription" adding to them.
• Some references have unused parameters, these can be deleted.

I think that's all I can see so far! (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate Hi. The nominator is me, not Cric editor (the user whom you pinged). Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I noticed that about 5 minutes later, my bad :D AA (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate I have fixed all of the issues you mentioned. About Ref#4, I couldn't link into a Trove article. So, I replaced that ref with a better online article instead, where the readers can anyway know about Ireland's CWC debut. Thank you for your feedback. Robo^Cric Let's chat 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. AA (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. AA (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: Penbugs appears to be a blog with no indication of editorial oversight; can you give your reasoning for why it counts as an RS? --PresN 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN, Hi. Thanks for your comment. To avoid any risks, I replaced that with a better source which obviously count as RS. You may check it now. Best. Robo^Cric Let's chat 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that sort it out. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [23].[reply]

List of James McAvoy performances

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

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

DBC

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

More comments

• "The following year, he starred in Kevin Macdonald's drama film" => "The following year, he starred in director Kevin Macdonald's drama film" Done
• "the collective title of three films split into three parts" - so the three films were each split into three parts? For a total of nine films? I don't think that's what you mean...... Done
• If you sort on any other column and then re-sort the "year" column back to chronological order, "TBA" jumps to the top, which isn't right. Until such time as it has a confirmed date, you'll need to use a sorting template to make it sort last. Done
• "The Sandman" sorts incorrectly in the TV table Done
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

In addition to Chris's comments above

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

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few edits. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

Image review from Dylan620

Helping out a fellow WikiCup participant as a thank-you for approving the DYK hook I submitted recently :) Quick note though, I've converted the "Done" templates into text – the FLC participation instructions discourage graphics and templates containing graphics, as they slow down the load time.

• There is a bit of a representation gap between 2007 and 2013, and again after 2015. At Commons:Category:James McAvoy by year, you can find several quality images of McAvoy from 2008 and 2019. I recommend adding an image from each of those two years. I also recommend putting an image in each of the television and stage sections; maybe 2007, 2008, and 2013 for film, 2019 for television, and 2015 for stage?
• Licensing checks out across the board. Of the four images currently being used, VRT directly received permissions for two of them; the other two are licensed under CC.
• All images are of sufficient quality and contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
• Ordinarily I would urge adding alt text, but in this case I think the captions themselves are sufficient and any alt text would be redundant. (The only possible alt text addition I can think of for all four of these images would be to add alt=Headshot of James McAvoy, which would not be particularly helpful.)

Once the first point is addressed, I will be comfortable supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little embarrassed that my suggestion may have done more harm than good. I checked the edits you made while browsing on mobile during a break at work, and the image formatting looked fine. Here on my laptop, though, the images in the television and stage sections are cutting through the section headers below them. I suppose the images in those sections could have their display sizes set to be smaller than the default thumbnail size (so as to match those in the film section), and then one of the images in the television section could be shifted upwards to the end of the film section? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shifted the sizes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, issue resolved. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [24].[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1990

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

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

Pseud 14

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

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 9 sources match what they are being cited for

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

• • @Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review. Fixed the (mis)spelling of the Al B track title -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

Image review

• Images are appropriate to the topic,follow Wikipedia's usage policies, and have succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to add

• To quote MC Hammer, "The chart's legit". Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

List of constituencies of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly

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

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

Dylan620

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

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

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

Fixed these two. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MPGuy2824. I have some more feedback:

• The prose is generally well-written, but I see a couple incomplete sentences in the first table and would like for those to be fleshed out a bit.

  Done

• The 2011 census of India stated that indigenous population constitute 95% of the state's total population. – mixed verb tenses here.

  Fixed

• Images need alt text.

  Fixed

• I am completely unable to access ref 23, which is the source for an entire column of data in the second table :/

  I've added an accessible ref for each row now.

• It may be worth mentioning that while the legislature to make Mizoram a state was passed in 1986, the statehood was not effected until 1987.

  Done

• In order to maintain consistency with the other refs, the websites and/or publishers should be wikilinked (if possible) in refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (which is missing these inputs), 9, 10, and 11 (ditto).

  Fixed

• Refs 7 and 11 have date formats which are inconsistent with the rest of the refs. You may wish to consider adding {{use dmy dates|date=March 2024}} to the top of the page.

  Done

• In ref 2, I'm not sure if "Legislative Department" should be in italics.

  Fixed

• In ref 1, the "live" URL redirects to a directory of legislative assemblies in India.

  Changed the reference

• The article states that the assembly is elected in five-year intervals, and that is indeed the case from 1993 onward, but election intervals before then seem to be irregular. Is there a way this could be explained?

  Info added to lead. Tell me if you think it makes more sense to move the text to the History section.

• On a less critical note, the sources that I successfully checked did verify the information they were used to cite.

That's what I've got for now. You've done a great job here, but I'm not yet at the point where I would feel comfortable supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies inline, but I think that all the points that you brought up have been fixed now. Thanks for the thorough review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better! Thank you for addressing my concerns. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• This leads to either President's Rule being imposed -- leads to either the President's Rule
• the Scheduled Tribes (ST) (along with the Scheduled Castes) -- I would remove the second parenthetical and just include it as part of the prose.
• That's all I have. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pseud 14: Fixed both. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1983/1984

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

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

Comments

• Just one thing: when it says "....would receive one "merit" point if they had reached the last-32 of the World Championship", presumably that must mean any of the three world championships relevant to the rankings? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing this. I realised that although the merit points were awarded at one time, I can break it out to show which tournaments they relate to. I'll ping you nce I've done that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ChrisTheDude I've broken out the merit points per tournament, and tweaked the wording. (You may have a better form of words for me than "in scope"). Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• A ranking list for the 1983/84 snooker season -- for consistency, I think this should be written as 1983–84 snooker season and similar to how 1976–77 season is written.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (1981, 1982 and 1983 World Snooker Championship) -- World Snooker Championship can be dropped, since it is already described as such in the preceding statement. I would also suggest linking it to the 1983 article, if that is the same competition it refers to.

• Amended. I didn't link to 1983 as it is linked shortly beforehand, but can add an additoonal link if you feel that would benefit readers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's my bad, I don't know how I missed the first instance. Should be good then. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (which were those ranked lower than 28th) -- I think this can be written into the statement without the parenthetical

• Amended to use commas - I'm open to other suggestions. 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• many thanks, Pseud 14. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

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

• Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Hello I will preform the source review and look at all nine of the sources and confirm that they are accurate. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• REF1 Snooker Scene reliable ✓ Pass
• REF2 Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, reliable has been archived and info matches✓ Pass
• REF3 Global Snooker Centre✓ Pass
• REF4 Snooker Scene reliable✓ Pass
• REF5 Snooker Scene reliable✓ Pass
• REF6 The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History seems relaible✓ Pass
• REF7 The Cruel Game reliable✓ Pass
• REF8 Snooker Scene reliable✓ Pass
• REF9 Birmingham Evening Mail reliable , I would link to it though✓ Pass
• SUPPORT Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promoting. --PresN 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Municipalities of Puebla

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

Yet another list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 43 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 15:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops don't know how I missed that, but it's fixed now. Mattximus (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments

• "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal) by a plurality voting system who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents." to "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal), by a plurality voting system, who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) which is responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents." Done
• "user fees" might need a wikilink (or an explanation). Done - the wikilink is actually quite good.
• a couple of refs seem to follow the y-m-d format for dates, while most of the article seems to follow mdy. This should be consistent throughout the article. Done MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All changes made, thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ref 6 still has the y-m-d date format. I assume that you'll fix it, so I Support. Pinging Dank, since you were waiting for my comment. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "who heads a concurrently elected municipal council (ayuntamiento) " - this Spanish word is not in italics, but others are.....? Done
• That's it, I think! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review, that was an easy fix! Mattximus (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

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

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. (I've mentioned before that I'm not happy about the redundancies in the Municipalities section, but not unhappy enough to hold up promotion.) I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [28].[reply]

List of roles and awards of Rachelle Ann Go