Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

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

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

List of generation II Pokémon

Nominator(s): CaptainGalaxy, Pokelego999 14:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the second generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal. Me and co-nominator Pokelego999 have gone through the list and included what information we could find about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise, the second generation's setting included in the article's lead, and a detailed inclusion of the development and beta of the Pokémon in the second generation. We both believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. CaptainGalaxy 14:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from DoctorWhoFan91

• "National Pokédex": explain/replace with what a Pokedex is
  • Let me know if the new wording is sufficient. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• "evolution via various means, such as exposure to specific items.": evolution, via various means such as exposure to specific items.
  • I don't believe that's grammatically correct? The comma there is largely unnecessary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • commas on both sides, maybe (it just looks like the process is being called "evolution by various means")
• "unlike other generations": unlike other subsequent generations
  • Changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• "and a stand-alone Pokémon based on the shell on Slowbro and Slowking.":would be confusing to non-fans
  • Slowking's shell is defined in the list itself for non-fans, but if you feel this is better off removed I will do so. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It's fine now
• Pokémon Gold and Silver ... in a future Pokemon game": split this paragraph in two for readability?
  • Already split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• I see no issues in reception, and I have not looked at the actual list

Reference formatting

• The Japanese(an other non-english) titles should have a translation
• Ref-58:"Bachelor Degree thesis": I don't think that's reliable?
  • They are usable if cited by other, verifiable papers and sources, at least if I'm remembering the rule correctly. Galaxy can give you more on this than me, as he's the one who dug up the source.
• Some of the "TheGamer" refs do not have it wikilinked

I might check some of the pokemon in the list later. Ping me when replying. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and wikilinked the remaining TheGamer sources that weren't prior. I am currently in the process of getting help for the translation of the non-english sources, it just may take some time. As for ref-58, I had confirmation from Cowboygilbert off-site that the thesis had been used in other academic sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have also asked this user additional questions on this thesis on their talk page here. CaptainGalaxy 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Google-translated titles might be fine, atleast as placeholders. The reference seems fine enough, I just brought it to attention to confirm how reliable it was.

Checking the starters and pure-electric types(17 Pokemon):

• Grass starters: I see no issues
• Fire starters: Just like the grass starters, combine the statement about anime cydaquil and it evolving into one. "Due to the leak ... Pokémon community.": I'm not sure that's needed, especially when Typhlosion has its own article
  • Typhlosion's info I felt was worthwhile to retain for those who don't want to read the original article but want a basic lowdown on what makes the species notable. Made the other alteration. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Fine probably, kinda borderline about typhlosion
• Water starters: I see no issues
• Pichu: "Several alternate forms of Pichu ... game's competitive scene.": Way too detailed- remove/shorten/make a separate article.
  • Pichu was already deemed non-notable via AfD a while back, and there isn't enough standalone coverage to support an article at this time. The other roles are significant roles for the Pokémon that at least warrant brief mention, particularly the Smash stuff, as it's some of Pichu's real only Reception that was carried over from the AfD's merge. The Smash stuff has significant coverage, so it felt worthwhile to include given it's one of Pichu's important things outside of the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Shorten the third paragraph at least, perhaps "Several alternate forms of Pichu appear in the series, such as a "Spiky-Eared" Pichu in Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, and a ukelele playing Pichu in the 2010 spin-off game Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs." and merge with the 4th para
• Mareep line: "re-growing only a week": re-growing completely only a week. "This light can even be seen ... lighthouses": make this out-of-universe
  • Made changes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Elekid: "Elekid become happy upon the sound of thunderstorms.": remove, feels in-universery
  • I do feel this gives insight into the species' personality, which is otherwise not covered by Elekid's section and is helpful for understanding the subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Borderline again
• Raikou+Entei+Suicine: "In the film, the character Molly Hale, ... out of control Unown.": shorten.
  • Done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

All in all, a very great list, but gets too detailed and in-universe at times. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: addressed the above. Let me know if anything else should be changed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the only changes you didn't make were borderline ones, I think will be worthy of being an FL once all of it gets reviewed, so a support from my side. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Thank you for supporting this list. All non-English sources have now been translated. CaptainGalaxy 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

I am bolding some text; it means those particular word(s) have been added or changed.

• The image Gold and Silver Beta Pokemon.jpg needs an alt text
• "The generation was unvailed at the beginning of the Nintendo Space World '97 event." => "The generation was unveiled at the beginning of the Nintendo Space World '97 event."
• franchise before Gold and Silver released => franchise before Gold and Silver was released
• In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. => In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture Pokémon and use their special abilities to combat other Pokémon
• Each Pokémon have one or two elemental types => Each Pokémon has one or two elemental types
• Typically the options are between a Grass Type, a Fire Type and a Water Type. => Typically, the options are Grass-type, Fire-type, or Water-type Pokémon.
• additionally allowed for more freedom in regards to creating the colors => additionally allowed for more freedom in creating the colors of species
• At this point in the game's development, the game had a massively larger world map than the final game => At this point in the game's development, it had a significantly larger world map than the final game
• This line were given the Electric-typing => This line was given the Electric-typing
• it was discovered that the Kotora line were scrapped from both => it was discovered that the Kotora line had been scrapped from both
• a viking longship => a Viking longship
• the Kotora line being scrapped and hoped for the line's return => the Kotora line being scrapped and hoped for its return
• Some designs that were scrapped designs => Some scrapped designs

That was all I could find :) The AP (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor: I believe my co-nom has gone through and addressed your concerns. Let us know if anything else needs to be done! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

All problems have been addressed, including the beta image alt text. As Pokelego mentioned, ping for anymore suggestions needing to be addressed. CaptainGalaxy 03:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Captain Galaxy @Pokelego999

• International Pokémon logo.svg needs an alt text
• Add italics to Nintendo Life and Kotaku for publication names.
• Change semicolon to comma in "poll held by The Pokémon Company"

In reception

• There are two mentions of Pokedex, change it to Pokédex
• believing the generation to have particularly memorable designs. → noting its particularly memorable designs.
• to be highly favorable and well-designed. → as highly favorable and well-crafted.
• believed the games' designs to be among the most creative in the series → regarded the games' designs as among the most creative
• the former three → three aforementioned Pokémon

The AP (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added most of the changes you suggested. However, I am confused about the suggestion "Add italics to Nintendo Life and Kotaku for publication names." I looked and I couldn't find examples where that wasn't already the case. Is it ok if you could show where I may be missing this? CaptainGalaxy 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Captain GalaxyNintendo Life - Gamer Network, Celeste_(video_game)#Farewell, Tetris_Party and see MOS:ITALICTITLE

Kotaku - The title itself is in italics,GTA VI, The Backrooms (it is also a GA) The AP (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this has already been applied. I don't see anywhere in this article where Nintendo Life or Kotaku aren't in italics. CaptainGalaxy 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Captain Galaxy Hmm, it appears so . As for the notes :

• is not believed to have influence on the design → is not believed to have influenced on the design
• as well as National Pokédex number → as well as National Pokédex number are provided

Ping me when you made the change :) The AP (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor: Both suggestions have now been implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support prose - Great work @Pokelego999, @Captain Galaxy The AP (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments/review from MolecularPilot

I will be reviewing this article, I'll post my review here once I'm done! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's my review, amazing work!

Prose

• Strengths: The prose is generally clear, concise, and engaging. The writing flows well, explaining complex topics (like game mechanics and design choices) in an accessible way. The language is appropriate for the topic and avoids jargon.
• Weaknesses: There are some minor grammatical inconsistencies (e.g., inconsistent use of Oxford commas). A few sentences could be rephrased for better clarity, particularly in the "Design and Development" section. For example, "This close association between the generations resulted in many species in the second generation being related to ones introduced in the prior games, or being designs that were scrapped from Red and Blue" could be tightened to something like "This resulted in many second-generation species being related to earlier ones, or reviving designs scrapped from Red and Blue."

Lead

• Strengths:The lead provides a good overview of the topic, including the number of Pokémon introduced, the original games, and the region where they're found. It also mentions key features of the generation, like new types and Baby Pokémon.
• Weaknesses: The lead could be more engaging. While informative, it lacks a hook to grab the reader's attention. Consider starting with a more compelling sentence about the impact or legacy of Generation II. Also, the inclusion criteria are implied (Pokémon introduced in Generation II) but not explicitly stated.

Comprehensiveness

• (a) Scope and Coverage: The list appears to cover all 100 Pokémon introduced in Generation II, meeting the requirement. The annotations provide a wealth of information about each Pokémon's design, origins, and role in the franchise.
• (b) Sourcing: The article is well-sourced, with citations provided for key facts and claims. The use of inline citations is appropriate and consistent.
• (c) Stand-alone Requirements: The list is substantial enough to stand alone as an article. It doesn't appear to fork content, duplicate material from other articles, or be suitable for inclusion within a related article. The eight-item minimum is easily met.

Structure

• Strengths: The table of contents and section headings make the article easy to navigate. The sortable table is a significant asset, allowing readers to organize the Pokémon by name, type, or evolution stage.
• Weaknesses: The initial table of contents listing every individual Pokémon name feels redundant given the sortable table below. Consider removing this list and linking directly to the section containing the detailed table.

Style

• (a) Visual Appeal: The article is visually appealing, with appropriate use of formatting, tables, and images. The use of color in the Pokémon type icons is helpful. The proportion of redlinks is minimal.
• (b) Media Files: The image of the Pokémon logo is relevant and appropriately captioned. The image of the beta Pokémon sprites is a valuable addition, illustrating the design process. More images of individual Pokémon could enhance the visual appeal, but it is understood they may be problematic due to copyright issues.
• (c) Accessibility: The formatting appears to be accessible, with correctly structured lists and tables. Alt text for images would further improve accessibility; ensure this is present where possible. While not used now, consistent and correct utilization of alt text for any future media additions is recommended.

Stability

The page is stable, which satisfies this criterion.

Overall Feedback

This is a strong featured list candidate. The article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-structured. The prose is generally strong, though minor improvements could be made for clarity and consistency. The lead could be made more engaging. More images of individual Pokémon could enrich the visual experience, but the currently included images are relevant and well-chosen. Addressing the minor weaknesses outlined above will further strengthen the article.

Therefore, I support this featured list candidacy. My suggestions for improvement are minor (and don't have to be addressed), but overall it is a very good list. Amazing work Pokelego999! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 02:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the example suggestion for the prose, and already added alt text for the beta sprite image for a prior suggestion. You are also indeed correct when it comes to more images being a copyright concern. If it is ok, could you elaborate a bit more about your suggestion for the lead? CaptainGalaxy 03:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've re-read the lead and I can say that I like the current version, so no further changes are needed. Thanks for making the amazing list! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Can you italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have gone ahead and done this for every source I could find. CaptainGalaxy 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "before Gold and Silver was released." -> "before Gold and Silver were released."
• "shell Pokémon which bares resemblance" -> "shell Pokémon that bares resemblance"
• "and were based on tigers," -> "and was based on tigers,"
• "it was discovered that the Kotora line" -> "It was discovered that the Kotora line"
• "That's all I've got. Ping me when completed please. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have gone ahead and applied all suggestions made. CaptainGalaxy 20:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I'm sorry, but Arvidsson (2018) is not a reliable source. There is a misreading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP here, which states that "masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." It does not mention undergraduate dissertations, implying a higher bar. The only reference I can find is in a bachelor's dissertation, which doesn't show "significant scholarly influence". References should be replaced unless significance can be demonstrated. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

In a similar vein, what makes Vainisto (2017) a reliable source? The only reference I'm seeing is in Arvidsson (2018), so I'm unsure that it meets the bar of "significant scholarly influence". UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over for a few days, but the thesis use just doesn't sit right with me. With regret, I oppose here on source reliability per the FL criteria. Arvidsson (2018) and Vainisto (2017) are not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP but are used extensively in the list—Arvidsson (2018) is cited nine times, Vainisto (2017) is cited thirteen times—so this is a pretty widespread issue. I'd be more than happy to reconsider once these references are removed or replaced with reliable sources; please ping me once this is done. Edit [20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)] Struck per below. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello UpTheOctave!, sorry for the late response. I have been very busy IRL so I haven't had the time to address the matter until now. With that being said, all mentions of these two sources have been replaced or removed. The only reason those sources were originally there was due to a misunderstanding on my part as well as missing context when talking about WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I hope that the recent edits made by me have addressed the issue you may have had regarding this list. CaptainGalaxy 01:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, I'm happy that this comment is dealt with so have struck my oppose. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review from TheDoctorWho

• The lead image shouldn't used a fixed pixel size, use upright and the equivalent measurement instead (MOS:UPRIGHT)

Fixed to "upright=1.14". CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Both images have alt text
• The lead image is free as it doesn't meet a TOO; the second image has a proper fair use rationale
• Ref 9 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 28 is a dead (direct) link, update the citation template so that it places the archive first

Now correctly displayed, I also fixed all the other sources that link to Kotaku Australia. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 46 and 47 cite the same author, but the first and last names are swapped, one of them needs to be fixed to the correct order

Fixed citation 47. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 54 should be "GamesRadar+" for consistency with other citations from the same source

Fixed. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Eurogamer.de -> Eurogamer in Ref 101, 352, 355, 358

I didn't implement this change as Eurogamer.de is the name of the German version of Eurogamer as seen here. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 116 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 333 is missing an author
  • This is also still alive link, citation template needs adjusted

Author added and correctly displayed live link. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 166 is missing an author

Author added. CaptainGalaxy 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Can I ask about the reliability of The Daily Dot? A lot of click bait in my personal experience, but I may have just been on the wrong side of the website.

Deemed reliable according to WP:VG/S as seen here and here. CaptainGalaxy 13:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Spot checked references 6, 12, 22, 30, 43, 91, 130, 176, 209, 242, 294, 323, 354, 401, 417, 420; everything checks out.
• I ran a few scripts for MOS purposes.

Looks great, just the few issues above. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: I have gone ahead and addressed the above with additional comments on The Daily Dot and Eurogamer.de points. CaptainGalaxy 13:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Works for me! Source and image reviews pass, happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• Refs 414 – Make consistent with one ref 362, this one capitalizes differently
• Refs 414 – and Link to MeriStation

Corrected capitalisation and linked to MeriStation. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 260, 308 – Remove "| RPG Site" from the reference title

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 335 – Remove "RPG Site Staff", it's typically assumed the site staff have written it if no author is listed

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a place RPG Site can link to? It comes up as reliable for me, and appears to be such, but if possible I'd prefer it to be wikilinked. I understand if it's not able to be though.

Unfortunately as of now RPG Site does not have an article nor a parent company article to be wikilinked to. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 340 – Mark as dead.

Now correctly formatted to indicate reference link is dead.

• Ref 1 and 151 – Both cite the same website, one uses "Nintendo" while the other uses "Nintendo Co, Ltd." - make them consistent

Corrected Ref 1 to now follow Ref 51's labelling of Nintendo. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 351 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription

Subscription indicator implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 86 – There was an RM a few months ago that changed "Yahoo!" to just "Yahoo", which is why the section targeted by the redirect is at Yahoo Japan. Remove the exclamation point

Removed. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 89 – The URL used is a redirect, please use the target page as the source instead

Redirected link implemented. 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 225 – The URL used is a redirect, please use the target page as the source instead

Redirected link implemented. 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 106 – Add |via=[[Google Books]] to note that the source is on Google books

Google Books indicator now implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I believe all suggestions are now implemented. CaptainGalaxy 16:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)

Nominator(s): DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC), Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)

I am nominating this for featured list because the 20th anniversary of the revived era is coming up. Doctor Who has two similar lists which are already FLs- List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials, so I would like for it to be an FL too. I have tried to make it look like these two, but the first one is old and the second is theme-specific, so I'm not sure if I have fixed everything per the criteria. But I would fix any issues that will get listed here. It's my first time nominating an FL, so apologies if I accidently missed something major. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have marginally more experience with FLCs (this is my ninth? nomination) I also plan to address the problems stated Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• Wikilink showrunner in the lead. Done
• I would suggest swapping the second and third paragraphs, so that the two paragraphs about episode/story numbers follow each other. The flow feels odd to discuss episode/story numbers, move on, and then circle back to them. Done
• I feel that the paragraph about Doctors and showrunners could just do with some general copyediting. Another reviewer may be able to provide specific suggestions on that paragraph, but it reads oddly to me. Done (as far as I could see)
• There's an error message at the end of the notes section. Done (fixed)
• since the 1965–1966 season, each episode has a title -> since the third season, each episode has its own title Done
• Unlike the classic series, most were stand alone as complete stories. -> Unlike the classic series, most episodes told stand-alone stories. Done
• During Eccleston's tenure, the episodes were all set on either Earth, or in its orbit, in its past, present and future. -> During Eccleston's tenure, all episodes were set on Earth, or its orbit, in the past, present, or future. Done
• The 2005 series introduces Billie Piper as the companion Rose Tyler, and constitutes a loose story arc, dealing with the consequences of the Time War and its impact on the Doctor, and the mystery of the seemingly omnipresent phrase 'Bad Wolf'. -> The 2005 series introduces Billie Piper as the companion Rose Tyler. A loose story arc deals with the consequences of the Time War, its impact on the Doctor, and the mystery of the seemingly omnipresent phrase 'Bad Wolf'. Done
• cast even before the first series aired. -> cast before the first series aired. Done
• Doctor Who needs italics in the following sentence. Done
• in various episodes in the 2006 series. -> in various episodes of the 2006 series. Done
• leaving the series at -> leaving the programme at (series here is also used to refer to a season, helps avoid confusion) Done
• tenure also ends -> tenure ends (there's nothing being compared here so "also" feels unnecessary) Done (added "as a companion")
  • As a side note I don't know that "tenure ends" is correct here either. It was a long term plan for Martha to return the following series. Perhaps something along the lines of [...] who leaves the Doctor in the finale [...] or [...] who returns home in the finale [...]
• and the new companion -> and his companion (has explained in the following sentence, Donna isn't new
  • she is new as companion, not character)
• which also brought back all the companions in the revived series up to that moment. - factually incorrect, re: Adam Mitchell and Astrid Peth Done(added "long-term")
• and deals with cracks spreading throughout time and space and erasing things and the opening of the Pandorica which are mentioned in various episodes. feels very run-on sentency Done
• Series 7 started with five episodes and a Christmas special in late 2012, followed by eight episodes in 2013. I thought "Christmas special" here was referring to The Doctor the Widow and the Wardrobe at first. It feels weird to leave one special out but include the other. Done (differently)
  • Maybe A Christmas special preceded the seventh series, which was once again split into two parts. The first five episodes aired in late 2012, followed by a second holiday special. The remaining eight episodes were broadcast in 2013. - doesn't have to be that exactly, just giving an idea of what may clear it up.
• and the reveal -> as well as the reveal, Ten didn't fight in the Time War intially Done
• "heroic" feels fancrufty Done
• exclusively of two-parters -> exclusively of two-parters and loose story arcs - helps cover the gap of TGWD/TWWL and FTR/HS/HB Done
• oath, and later -> oath, later Not Done
• both of whom depart in the finale "The Doctor Falls". - they both appear in the following special, Mackie more importantly even receives main billing Done
• The Thirteenth Doctor was portrayed by Jodie Whittaker,[55] becoming the first woman to play the role, with Chris Chibnall taking over as showrunner from the eleventh series onwards, and the reduction of episodes from twelve to ten. - run-on again Done
• no enemies from the previous seasons returned. -> no antagonists from the programme's history returned. (again the season/series thing) Done
• This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[60] the return of Jack Harkness,[61] and the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor who existed at some point before the Time War,[47] while following the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child. run-on again Done
• in an attempt to take over Earth and the destruction of large parts of the universe. -> in an attempt to take over Earth and destroy the universe. Done
• regeneration,[69][70] with both Dan and Yaz departing in the finale. -> regenration.[69][70] Both Dan and Yaz departed in the final special. Done
• Russell T Davies returned as showrunner, partnering with Bad Wolf to co-produce and Disney+ regarding distribution outside the UK to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond". -> Russell T Davies returned as showrunner to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond". [[Bad Wolf (production company}|Bad Wolf]] and Disney began co-producing the programme while Disney+ handled international distribution outside of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. - Disney is also a co-producer, I feel the Northern Ireland mention can't hurt since it was listed in most news articles at the time Partly Done
  • first part, NI is in the UK
• Wikilink Destination: Skaro somewhere in there about the CiN special. Done
• and is the current -> who is the current Done
• saw the reduction of episodes from ten to eight - wasn't Flux only allocated eight episodes?
  • series 13 was allotted 10, Covid changed it to eight, not a production decision
• following season centred -> following series centred Done
• Perhaps a mention of the time released a day prior on D+ after the bit about a midnight iPlayer release? A mention of it being marketed as "Season 1" also couldn't hurt. Partly Done
  • it was released at the same time everywhere, only those west of the UK got it a day prior
• Filming occurred between 23 October 2023 and 25 May 2024. - filming isn't mentioned in any other section?
  • not released yet, so that's why

Ping me when done or replying, I may decide to take a brief look at sourcing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done/replied TheDoctorWho DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, thank you for the review, and sorry for so many corrections being required. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: No need for the apology, I'm actually impressed how much this list has improved over the last few months as a result of your efforts, and just want it to be the best it can be.

I'm content with the reasoning on all the Not Done's other than the one regarding series 4 and Donna being a "new" companion. You stated it wasn't done because she is "new as companion" which is still factually inaccurate as she fulfilled the companion role in The Runaway Bride, just in a one-off role. Is Astrid Peth, or Christina de Souza or Joy Almondo, NOT a companion because they only appeared in one episode? It further causes a discrepancy because Donna is listed as the companion in the Infobox at The Runaway Bride.

What about something like [...] binding the Doctor and his now full-time companion Donna Noble together, [...]? Alternatively, if readjusting sentences, I could also see something like In this series, Catherine Tate reprises her role as Donna Noble from "The Runaway Bride", this time as a full-fledged companion. The coincidences binding the Doctor and Donna together are explored. Donna departs in "Journey's End", which also brought back [...] (followed by the rest of the paragraph as is). TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 and OlifanofmrTennant: Looks fantastic!

One last thing, the newly added images need alt text (just the actors names should be sufficient), and I also suggest adding the performers names to the visible caption as well. Something similar to what the one at The Power of the Doctor#Casting looks like.

I won't hold back if the above isn't done though, it's merely a suggestion, so I'm more than satisfied with going ahead and giving this list my support, great work! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a lead image that can be added?
  • Not particularly, maybe I can add the images of the six actors of the Doctor
• "Six actors have lead the revived series" => "Six actors have led the revived series" Done
• "Tennant only portrayed him through the 60th anniversary specials" => "Following this, Tennant only portrayed him in the 60th anniversary specials" (we do not use "through" in British English in the way you have here) Done
• "most episodes told stand alone stories" => "most episodes told standalone stories"Done
• "binding the Doctor and his new companion Donna together, portrayed by Catherine Tate," => "binding together the Doctor and his new companion Donna, portrayed by Catherine Tate, " Done (I think the grammar is already fine?) (done now)
• "The Doctor continued to travel alone through all the specials" => "The Doctor continued to travel alone in all the specials" Done
• "Series 7 started with five episodes, was split by a Christmas special in late 2012, and was followed by eight episodes in 2013" => "Series 7 started with five episodes, was split by a Christmas special in late 2012, and was completed by eight episodes in 2013" - current wording indicates that series 7 was followed by 8 episodes in 2013, which isn't right) Done (I feel like it being under series 7 is context enough)
  • Currently the article says "Series 7 started [...] was split [...] and was followed by eight episodes in 2013" - the subject of all the verbs is "series 7", so as worded it says that series 7 was followed by eight episodes in 2013. This is indisputably not correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Done now
• "and as well as reveal of the War Doctor" - use either "and" or "as well as" but not both, also "the" is missing before "reveal" Done
• "and the Doctor questioning of him being a good man" => "and the Doctor's questioning of him being a good man" Done
• "The series dealt with the mystery of the vault and the Doctor's oath, and later exploring the Doctor and Missy's relationship" => "The series dealt with the mystery of the vault and the Doctor's oath, and later explored the Doctor and Missy's relationship" Done
• "coressponding Christmas special" - first word is spelt wrong Done
• Pipe the link at the end of that same sentence Done
• "This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[61] and the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor,[48] and following the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child" => "This series dealt with a new incarnation of the Master,[61] the appearance of an unknown incarnation of the Doctor,[48] the destruction of Gallifrey and the secret of the Timeless Child" Done
• "Both Dan and Yaz departing in the finale" => "Both Dan and Yaz departed in the finale" Done
• "The series released at midnight on BBC iPlayer in the UK" => "The episodes were released at midnight on BBC iPlayer in the UK"
• "The BBC broadcast the episodes on the following Saturday evening" - this is a bit meaningless as the previous sentence did not specify on which day of the week they were released at midnight (also it would be worth stating in which timezone the aforementioned midnight was, as I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the episodes were not released at midnight all over the world, with Australia getting them hours before the UK)
• Disney+ is linked twice in consecutive sentences. Check for overlinking generally.
• "A third series with Davies as showrunner was being planned by November 2023.[3] By that June, Davies was working on the fourth script for the series" - "that June", given the sentence structure, would be June 2023. I presume this is not what you mean.....? Done (removed a sentence, and forgot to change this sentence)
• Footnotes: "Episodes for the fourteenth series released simultaneously at midnight" => "Episodes for the fourteenth series were released simultaneously at midnight" Done (this was in the footnote, so removed it from the prose)
• That's what I got. Mostly little niggles, this is great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review ChrisTheDude DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

One other thing I didn't pick up above (apologies) - there's inconsistency in the tense used to refer to different seasons. For example, you have "This series introduces Freema Agyeman as the companion Martha Jones, whose time as the companion ends in the finale "Last of the Time Lords", and deals with the mysterious Mr. Saxon" (all in the present tense) but then you also have "The series consisted almost exclusively of two-parters and loose story arcs, and dealt with the consequences of the changing dynamics of Doctor and Clara's relationship, which led to her departure in the finale "Hell Bent", and the prophecy of the Hybrid" (all in past tense) and then in other cases you mix and match e.g. "This series introduced Karen Gillan [....] It deals with....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that either. I'll change it all to present tense. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The viewers figures for the 11 April 2009 to 1 January 2010 specials and the whole of Series 5 appear to incorporate BBC HD viewing figures as well as BBC1. An additional BARB top 10 reference which shows the BBC HD figures should be added to the columns in these sections, possibly also add a note to explain the viewers figures are a combination of the two channels. JP (Talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • As an alternative, I just handled a similar issue on the second series table at List of Torchwood episodes by subtracting the secondary network and (where necessary) adding a footnote for the additional data. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think I'm gonna change the ref- as there seems to be issues for the data in that time period for some reason. Thanks for seeing that, I did not check the data for all series this thoroughly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Pokelego999

Been meaning to comment on this one.

-Perhaps include a brief synopsis of the show in the lead? As a casual reader I would have no idea what Doctor Who is about just reading the first paragraph, and no clue who the Doctor is and why they're played by so many actors.

Added

-As I mentioned previously on the talk page, I object to the referencing of so many classic era episodes in the revived era article, as a casual reader does not need the name drops. This can probably be simplified down to something like "The episode numbering fluctuates depending on the source" or something similar. This is not imperative, so if you feel the list is better off as is, I will not attempt to force you to change this.

Changed

-Do we need the note on Doctor Who season 22 in the table saying the episodes for the Sixth Doctor were broadcast in 45 minute episode blocks? That doesn't seem to really be useful for this list, and is basically trivia.

it technically relates to the numbering- the whole section is transcluded, so I would rather not change it

-Captain Jack is a series 1 companion who plays a major recurring role, though is not mentioned at all in the synopsis. Mickey is also taken on as a companion in series 2, though is not mentioned at the summary. Done

-I feel the plot summaries at the start of the series are very brief. They don't really give much info on what each series is about, and without context as to how the series even works, feel extremely confusing. Using series 3 as an example, who is Martha? Why is she travelling with the Doctor, and why does she leave at the end of the series? Who is Mr. Saxon, and why is he important? Other series are much the same. What is the vault? Where is the Doctor during this? How is the series changing by series? While I understand that this is not a main series article and thus does not need a degree of depth, I feel at least some summary of the basics is needed, as otherwise readers are going to be left confused about nearly every aspect of the show, making it unhelpful for navigation since readers aren't getting a decent picture of what article they're looking at.

I will make slight changes, but they are not too brief, it is not the article for the series or the show as a whole

-Additionally, the fact no dev info is included anywhere is strange to me. No information about how the series is evolving and changing behind the scenes, bar slight changes in episode counts or a change in lead actor or showrunner? That stuff is important for understanding how the environment and context of the episodes is shifting as the production evolves. Things like changes in production techniques, script-writing methods, reasons for why characters are taking the roles they are, etc. This is a topic inherently related to the revived era's episodes, and not the main Who article.

Same as above

-"Donna departs in "Journey's End", which also brings back all the long-term companions in the revived series up to that moment." I'd reword, since this implies every companion comes back for regular adventures after this point, when they are only back for an episode. Additionally, though this is semantics, the companions technically returned in The Stolen Earth, not just Journey's End.

changed

-"for ones involving convoluted time travel, which remained a staple for the entirety of Smith's tenure as the Doctor." "Convoluted" feels very opinionated. Perhaps "complicated"? Keeps the same meaning without any of the emotional connotations.

• convoluted is no more opinionated than complicated is

-"It deals with cracks spreading throughout time and space erasing things" Specify that it's from existence. The current wording could imply and erasure of something in a variety of contexts.

fixed

-Series 6's synopsis introduces River Song, even though she was introduced in Series 4 and played a large role in Series 5. Her backstory is not elaborated on in the synopsis, so a reader has no idea why she's important. Additionally, her actress is not mentioned, unlike the other Companions when they are introduced.

-The 2013 specials synopsis is primarily only focusing on the events of Day of the Doctor and entirely ignores the events of Time of the Doctor.

-"and the Doctor's questioning of him being a good man." I'd reword this, since the current wording implies the Doctor is questioning if Missy is a good man.

Fixed

-"after his last stand against the Cybermen" The Cybermen are not introduced before this, and his stand with them was not in Twice Upon a Time. Additionally, they are not hyperlinked.

Fixed (I think "against" the Cybermen is enough to say they are bad guys)

-"two-parters" I'd reword to "two-part episodes" for those unfamiliar with the usual lingo.

Done

-"and the prophecy of the Hybrid" This coming after the mention of Clara leaving in the finale of Hell Bent implies the Hybrid takes root only after Hell Bent, even though it is a series wide arc. The arc with Ashildr is also not mentioned at all despite being the only other major story arc not mentioned here.

Done, plus I don't think Ashildr is important enough

-"The time slot was changed to Sunday." The series' time slot was never mentioned before this, so this change comes a bit out of nowhere.

Saturday is mentioned at the very top

-" For the first time in the revived era, no enemies from the programme's history return in the series." We have no context for returning enemies since bar the Master (Who is only mentioned under different aliases) no enemies are explicitly mentioned or stated to be recurring.

I don't think it needs context

-"the destruction of Gallifrey" What is Gallifrey? It is not mentioned at all prior to this, and its previous destruction and rescue are not acknowledged in prior summaries.

Fixed

-This article is still sourcing Audience Appreciation from Doctor Who News, which has been deemed an unreliable source by the WikiProject. These should be removed.

It's for series 14. DWN was deemed borderline unreliable, minimal use should be fine

-" Russell T Davies returned as showrunner to celebrate the 60th anniversary and "series beyond"" Davies returned for reasons beyond celebration, and the current phrasing implies he was brought back as part of festivities and not for any other reason. Done

I do not think the phrasing implies that

I think it does Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

-Hyperlink Davros and the Toymaker in the 2023 specials. Done

-"His tenure saw the episode count reduced from ten to eight. For marketing purposes, the series' numbering system was reset, starting with "Season 1"." This statement is unsourced.

Added

Overall

Sourcing looks good at a glance, however, I do not believe this is Featured List caliber. It gives absolutely zero context in every place context is needed, with random names being thrown around with the readership expected to know what they mean. The individual series need some form of production information and plot summary beyond the barest of information to really understand the context as a whole, both in and out of universe. I'd either expand the summaries, or just drop the summaries entirely and just make it a bare episode list. As it stands, it's not very helpful as a standalone or navigational article.

There are some good positives on this list; I'm glad you guys were able to find AI sourcing for some of the episodes, since that was previously a point of complication, and overall the citation quality is very well done. This list, however, needs more meat on the bone to function independently. If you need it, I'd be willing to help with some of my requested changes, since I understand I'm asking a lot, but as of now I don't feel I can support this just yet, as there is a lot of work that needs to go into this list to make it reach a Featured standard. Let me know if I can elaborate on anything I've brought up here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I feel that we should considered withdrawing this. I as the co-non felt that the nomination was a bit premature though didn’t say anything. Pokelego has above listed various problems that have yet to be fixed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant, most of the changes are small or I think unnecessary. Let's not withdraw, we would just have to nom it again in a week or two even if it takes time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999 all the changes have more or less been made, or replied to. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999, could you clarify if you are going to oppose(and on what criteria(s)), given that I do not believe that it is undetailed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. While it's probably not the best it can be (balancing depth and conciseness is always difficult in lists), it does meet the FLC criteria. No one expects readers to know the names, just to give a summary. Lists do not need to function completely independently though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 sorry for the late reply, thought I commented already.

-"The specials focus on a premonition of "four knocks" leading to the death of the Tenth Doctor, starting from "Planet of the Dead"." I feel Planet of the Dead may be confusing here, implying the Doctor's death starts here instead of the Knocks thread. Probably just easier to say the specials focus on the premonition without mentioning the episode, though if you choose to fix this I'd definitely fix the grammar here.

-Remember to back up any new additions to the summaries with reliable sources if you haven't already. For instance, the statements that River Song appeared in prior episodes in Series 6 is not sourced to Collider.

-"which brings several enemies together in an attempt to take over Earth" Slight nitpick for Flux here, as technically the enemies weren't all united in an attempt, as the various antagonists (Serpent and Sontarans, the Ravagers, the Daleks/Cybermen, Tecteun, etc) were mostly working individually of each other, so this is a slight inaccuracy.

-Overall I think the rest of the changes to the summaries are satisfactory, and your responses to my above requests well-answered. Since the above are pretty small issues that I have faith will get fixed, I'm fine with Supporting this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

Putting a marker here, expect a forthcoming source review with some other comments. For transparency, I was asked neutrally on the community Discord server to provide thoughts; this will not influence my final opinion. Please ping me if I don't respond in 48 hours. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 16:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: pinging bcs it's been 48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness, source review below. I know I said I'd provide additional comments, but a source review of this size has been quite draining – sorry for that. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed as seen at Special:diff/1271356389

Reliability

• I'm aware this is a different subject area, but WP:VG/S lists Screen Blend (refs 22 & 41) as unreliable. Unless it's significantly different in its coverage of television, this should be replaced.
  • I checked the website, seems to be as reliable as WP:VALNET (see below)
  • confused with a diff source, yeah, it's probably unreliable, removed
• I'm not thrilled with the citing of various WP:VALNET sources (refs 23, 30, 34, 36, 46, 51, 71 & 86) and would probably ask for removal if at FAC. Although FLCs don't require "high quality" sources, are there any more reliable sources that could verify this information?
  • I'll look, though I don't think I'll find alternative sources for most
  • Removed most of them, only three remain, though replacements are getting harder to find
    • Collider has a higher standard of quality then most valnet sources, so I've re-added it.a
    • I've looked, these substitutions might work: ref 27 could be replaced with [3], ref 46a with [4], ref 46b by [5], 31a by [6][7], and 31b by [8][9]
      • Thank you, I'll replace the ones that are replacable,(Done, though I am not able to add or take the Digital Spy refs from archive)
• What makes Doctor Who News (refs 53, 88 & 91) a reliable source?
  • I'll remove 53; Doctor Who News is a fan-site, so it's deprecated for use in the wikiproject, but I can't find the source where they found the info from, so I haven't yet removed it (their info is basically always correct, but they don't usually list their sources)
  • They are now one ref used four times- I can't find the sources for them
  • two Valnet and four Doctor Who News left- I have made basically all changes that I possibly could
    • Not wild on this use, I don't feel comfortable passing the source review with a deprecated source present. Are there really no other possible sources for the appreciation index?
  • Definitely not, I have checked all the official sources - I can't find anything(the BBC usually releases the AI late or never now, usually unofficial channels like DWN find the data first)

Consistency

• References should either be in title or sentence case, not both.
  • I copy-pasted the titles, I'll convert all to one of these (Done)
    • Missed refs 30, 39 and 84.
      • Done, forgot refs transcluded in
• The date format for "Doctor Who: The Complete History" should be consistent with other magazine sources.
  • I'll do that
  • Done
    • Missed ref 1.
      • Apologies, done now
• All "Doctor Who: The Complete History" references should be {{cite magazine}}, not {{cite journal}}. They should also use the same parameters (see later).
  • Done
    • Missed ref 1.
      • Done now
• BBC News should either be {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}, not both.
  • Done
    • This has not been done
      • Ctrl+f gives no cite news templates?
        • Sorry, I was mistaken. What I should have said is that BBC News should be in the website parameter as BBC News Online is not a publishing company.
          • Done
• Linking (or not linking) of publishers should be consistent.
  • I believe all websites with pages are now linked
    • Might be worth linking The Mary Sue, but that's a a redirect. Not a problem though.
• I'm a bit confused on the use of sfns here, other sources with several pages are just using one reference template?
  • They are used in several places, the rest are used only in one place
  • Changed
• Names of sources should be consistent. For example you give "Doctor Who: The Complete History" and "Doctor Who – The Complete History"; "DoctorWho.TV" and "Doctor Who"; "Screen Rant" and "ScreenRant". There's other examples here as well, please check throughout.
  • Done
• Some "Doctor Who: The Complete History" references give "Panini Comics, Hachette Partworks" as a publisher, some only the former.
  • Done

Other comments

• Ref 5 is a dead link, switch to archive.
• Ref 7 has a missing author.
• Ref 12 is missing an archive.
• Ref 16 is missing publisher.
• Ref 20 is missing an author. Allcaps should be reduced to title or sentence case per MOS:CONFORM.
  • Still missing author.
    • Done
• Ref 21 is missing an archive.
• Ref 26 is missing an archive.
  • You forgot to strike this out, I assume?
    • It's now ref 23 in the current version. The other Barb reference has an archive, so I'm presuming this can be done as well?
      • Oh, archive won't work, info is stored on the server side- I have removed the archive from the other barb too
• Ref 29 is missing an author.
• Ref 39 has a superfluous tagline in the title.
• Ref 46 is missing access date and archive.
• Ref 49 is missing archive.
• Ref 52 is missing archive.
• Ref 59 should drop "(magazine)".
• Ref 61 has K in the last name parameter: this is a middle initial.
• Ref 65 is missing author.
• Ref 68 is missing author.
  • Now ref 70.
    • All refs on and around that have authors/editors?
      • I'm not being clear enough, sorry. The reference without an author is Radio Times (2 March 2020) and is ref 70 in the current version.
        • Apologies, I'm not sure how I missed that
• Ref 69 is missing author.
• Refs 88 and 91 are duplicates of ref 53.
  • Added missing authors, and the other issues except archives. Archives I'll add after the list is in it's final version, as the bot sometimes gives issues when run multiple times- would need to add the archives myself, the bot is not working correctly

Spotchecks

• I'll spotcheck 25% of the listed references.
• Could you send me over copies of the following sources: Aldridge and Murray (2008); Pixley (2006); Pixley (2008); Pixley (2010); Ainsworth (2015).
• I'll check these and the following online sources soon: Barb Audiences (a) and (b); Cornell, Day and Topping (1995); The Register (2013); Anders (2017); Turner (2017); Jones (2018); Jeffery (2019); Oganesyan (2020); Allcock (2021); Cremona (2021); Petski (2021); Brit (2022); Scott (2023); Axford (2024); Craig (2024); Mellor (2024); Whitbrook (2024); Wilkinson (2025).
  • Pixley and Ainsworth sent on Discord, Aldridge I copied from Russell T Davies, which became an FA while having it, so I believe the data would be correct(I don't have access to them, I'll have to search for it more)

Print sources:

• Aldridge and Murray (2008): AGF per offwiki discussion, I cannot find any versions of this online.
• Pixley (2006): checks out apart from p. 101. Where is the AI for 177a&b coming from?
  • Sorry, forgot to add the ref for that (Done)
• Pixley (2008): all good.
• Pixley (2010): all good.
• Ainsworth (2015): all good.

Online sources:

• Barb Audiences (a) and (b): checks out.
• Cornell, Day and Topping (1995): I don't think this verifies the text it supports. I see no mention of Shada not being broadcast, or information on the numbering of episodes.
  • Added partially why the numbering differs
• The Register (2013): assuming this is based on the chart. I think it verifies the content.
• Anders (2017): all good, but I'm not sure the quotes around "turning good" are needed.
  • The quotes are due to the ambiguity of her turn
    • Not a Dr Who buff by any means, but if there is only a possibility of a turn, isn't the turn by its nature ambiguous?
      • Removed quotes
• Turner (2017): all good.
• Jones (2018): unless I'm missing something, "For the first time in the revived era" is not verified.
  • Emphasis on no old monsters+ the prev series had atleast one episode where an old enemy was part of its name. Apologies-I know it is kinda of a strech
    • I'd much rather there be a supporting citation. I'm fine with "no enemies from the programme's history return in the series", but this seems like unsourced analysis.
      • Removed "for the first time ... "
• Jeffery (2019): all good.
• Oganesyan (2020): all good.
• Allcock (2021): all good.
• Cremona (2021): all good.
• Petski (2021): all good.
• Brit (2022): all good.
• Scott (2023): all good.
• Axford (2024): all good.
• Craig (2024): not seeing how "swapping the melodramatic stories of his predecessor for ones involving convoluted time travel, which remained a staple for the entirety of Smith's tenure as the Doctor" is verified.
  • It's for moffat started with the eleventh doctor in series 5 only
• Mellor (2024): All good.
• Whitbrook (2024): ditto Craig (2024).
  • "questionable mysteries and twists, to his defenders, a penchant for tight, twisting thrillers"+ the episodes themselves as a unmentioned primary source
  • Changed melodramatic to emotion-driven as well
    • I'm fine with the use of primary sources for simple description, but for this conclusion I'd need a source to say that the previous stories were emotion-driven, that the new stories are based on "convoluted" time travel, that Moffat consciously swapped to this style, and that this style lasted until the end of the 2013 specials.
      • Changed to only talking about Moffat's style
• Wilkinson (2025): all good.

That's all for now. I realise I've been quite thorough, if you think I'm being too harsh on any of these points please say! UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Replied to all points, thanks for the review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Almost done, UpTheOctave!. Some questions for clarifications asked.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Replies and spotchecks added. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Replied, UpTheOctave! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Over to you, only a few things left (BBC News formatting, Barb archiving, Radio Times missing author, "turning good" quotes, and verifiability concerns with Jones and Whitbrook). Re Doctor Who News, I'm really not comfortable with the use of this source. If it is deprecated by the Wikiproject and seen as unreliable, I don't think I can pass this review per WP:FLCR until they are removed. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Done all, UpTheOctave!. Regarding Doctor Who News, it is used on the WikiProject, though at minimal levels. The site provides accurate and semi-reliable information, and has passed GAs(it was only deprecated recently). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm content with all but the Doctor Who News references, which I feel I must take a firm stance against. Fundamentally, it is a blog run by volunteers. Blogs should generally not be used anywhere, let alone in an FL or GA. The recency of the deprecation doesn't factor into this. If anything, it explains why there are lingering uses. Even if it is the truth, we must use reliable sources per WP:V. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll check to see if anything can be found to replace them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

UpTheOctave! I disagree with your assessment of DWN, but to fulfill the criteria, I have removed the index for those four seasons from transclusion (as the search goes on to remove/replace them there too). Hope that it enough for the criteria to be satisfied. Once again, thanks for the review! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm happy to pass this source review now. If you have an argument that Doctor Who News is a reliable source, I'd be happy to revisit. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional comment from TheDoctorWho

It has recently and regretfully come to my attention in an FLC of mine, that usages of {{Episode table/part}} are an accessibility issue per MOS:COLHEAD. Courtesy pinging @MPGuy2824 and PresN: as they can probably answer any specific questions on the issues with it better than I can. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed it now, I think, TheDoctorWho. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as looking through how you dealt with the issue helped. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Striking my comment since this was addressed, my support !vote above still stands. Thanks for taking care of this so quick, I plan on bringing it up at WT:TV later today since it's obviously a wider issue beyond the scope of just this list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the "Regular seasons" table will also have to be split. It has the same issue. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

That might be a controversial edit, but I'll split that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you've done this, so support. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I've performed a different type of split with the article, using pre-existing auxiliary columns, so that we can keep the entire programme history in one table, hope it's still valid! -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

• External link is formated as "DoctorWho.TV" whereas the references use "Doctorwho.tv"
• Ref 5 – Change publisher to BBC Online instead
• Ref 7 – Add publish date
• Ref 12 – Link to The Mary Sue
• Ref 14 – Add author
• Refs 23 and 67 – What's with "(No permanent link available. Search for relevant dates.)" included in some references? This implies that the information is not necessarily verifiable, which is an issue.
  • It's verifiable, but the date needs to be entered manually to see the numbers
• Ref 27 – Add author
• Ref 27 – Change "A. V. Club" to "The A.V. Club", to match the target
• Ref 32 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
  • Added =limited(bcs the first few are free to see), also below
• Ref 69 – Has an error, appears to be missing a "|" in the ref, as it shows the access date in the reference
• Ref 81 – No website listed
• Ref 84 – Add publish date
• Ref 88 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• I think it would also make sense to link DoctorWho.TV (or whatever capitalization you chose)

That's what I've got. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: thanks for the review, did all. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The way BARB (ref 23) works is you type In the dates you want information on and it will tell you, all information is hosted on the one page so its the same URL. The information is correct Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the explanation @OlifanofmrTennant. I guess I'll go ahead and support then. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [10].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Japan

Nominator(s): Tone 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Temples! Shrines! Ancient castles! Japan has 26 World Heritage Sites and 4 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The nomination for Kazakhstan is already seeing support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042 comments

"and natural sites which are important" -> "and natural sites that are important" History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
"point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty" -> "point of view of science, conservation, or natural beauty" History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Tone 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I have a bit more. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On the map the N in Nara overlaps with a dot, if that can be fixed it should be. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sane with Itsukushima Shrine, its covered by the dot for Okinoshima. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was playing a bit, I cannot really fix that. We would either need to enlarge the map, which I don't fancy, use numbers, which is also not ideal, or say X,Y,and Z are in the Kyoto area (and mark only Kyoto, but this is again not ideal because Nara is another city). I suggest we keep it as it is. Tone 13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, its not too big of a deal, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• "Even if though the complex has undergone"
• "reaching almost to 2,000 m"
• wikilink "montane temperate rainforest" to Montane ecosystems#Temperate climate
• "substantial exchange between Japan and countries in Asia and Europe" -> "substantial exchange between Japan and other Eurasian countries"
• "the area of the Mount Kinkeizan."
• "Ogasawara Archipelago" - I'm unsure if archipelago needs to be capitalized. Please check.
• "the islands have a high number of endemic species"
• "Mount Fuji is a solitary stratovolcano with thea height of"
• "transition of Japan into a modern industrialized era" - I would replace "era" with "nation" since the subject is Japan.
• " and the northern part of Okinawa Island"
• "site comprises a heritage of gold and silver mines" OR use another word instead of "heritage"
• That's what I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! The Ogasawara article uses Islands and Archipelago when together with the name, so probably yes. Tone 13:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  • " and the northern part of Okinawa Island" isn't done yet.
  • Support in advance, since I'm sure you'll get to it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Got it, thanks! Tone 15:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

• first entries to the list took place in 1993 when four sites → first entries to the list took place in 1993,(adding a comma) when four sites
• In Himeji's description : main keep are the multiple roof layers → main keep is the multiple roof layers
• In Yakushama's description : Add a comma between "over" and "1,000"
• In Shirakami-Sanchi's description : Add the before "Japanese black bear"

I am going to sleep now, I will leave more comments tmrw The AP (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Tone 13:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tone In Shirakami-Sanchi's description

• northern Japan after the Last Glacial Period → northern Japan following the Last Glacial Period

In Kyoto's description:

• was the capital → served as the captial
• To the middle of the 19th century → until the mid-19th century
• The designs of Japanese gardens has had → The designs of Japanese gardens have had

In Shirakawa-gō and Gokayama's description:

• remote mountain area → remote mountain region
• With steeply pitched thatched roofs → featuring steeply pitched thatched roofs

In Hiroshima Peace Memorial's description:

• the ruin of the only building → the ruins of the only building
• atomic bomb above the city of Hiroshima → atomic bomb over Hiroshima
• Originally, this was the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotional Hall, built in 1914. → Originally constructed in 1914, it was the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall.
• commemorates the effects of humanity's most destructive weapons and at the same time expresses hope for world peace → commemorates the devastation caused by humanity's most destructive weapons while simultaneously expressing hope for world peace

In Itsukushima Shinto Shrine's description:

• holy place → sacred site
• founded → established
• in the 13th century → in the ?? century (The founder Taira no Kiyomori died in 12th century, so how come it was founded in 13th century?)
• and even if → although
• setting on the coast with mountains in the background → coastal setting, framed by mountains

In Ancient Nara's description:

• cultural landscape with → cultural landscape including
• developments of styles → stylistic developments

In Temple of Niko's description:

• have → contain
• interactions between man and the nature → the relationship between humans and nature
• carving of three wise monkeys → carving of the three wise monkeysIn Gusuku Sites's description:

In Gusuku Sites's description:

• from → spanning
• developed → evolved
• south-east Asia → Southeast Asia

In Kii mountain's description:

• have sacred sites → are home to sacred sites
• there is a well-documented → with a well-documented
• shape → shapes

I have more to comment but first make these changes and ping me :) The AP (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Done with this round, great suggestions, thanks! Tone 09:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [11].

---

List of National Assembly constituencies of the Bahamas

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is the first nomination of 2025. I decided to go with a different continent (N. America) this time. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. This would be the first FL within the ambit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahamas. Similar FLs: Nepal and Zambia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

ChrisTheDude

• "The current Assembly was elected by the general elections held on 16 September 2021" - there were multiple elections held on that day......?
• "and its use the first-past-the-post system for elections" - doesn't make sense
• "The Members of Parliament (MPs) serve 5-year-terms" => "The Members of Parliament (MPs) serve five-year-terms"
• "when a Representative Assembly was setup" => "when a Representative Assembly was set up"
• "The first elections [....] was" - subject is plural, verb is singular
• "recommendations of the Counstituency Commission in 2016" - "Constituency" is spelt incorrectly
• "review of the electoral boundaries every 5 years" => "review of the electoral boundaries every five years" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed these issues, but I'm planning to make some changes. I'll ping you here after that so that you can take a second look. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I wasn't able to find anything interesting enough to add to the prose. Please take a look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reywas92

• I see you deleted the columns for current members and parties. While I agree that duplicates 14th Bahamian Parliament, I'm unsure why a separate page is even needed for this then. Since the electorate is as of 2021 Bahamian general election, that article could also contain the list of elected members and their constituencies. Even Parliament of the Bahamas is quite short and could also include this list. I know you don't work on Bahamas articles generally but the content seems unnecessarily spread out or duplicated and I'm just not convinced this passes criterion 3c. I noted this on the Zambia list as well. Only a fraction of countries even have lists like this in Category:Lists of constituencies, and some others there like Jamaica, Vanuatu, Tanzania, Uganda, Trinidad and Tabago, Iceland, and more could also be merged. Just because some countries have standalone lists of constituencies doesn't mean all countries need to when there aren't a lot of constituencies or much unique content that won't fit elsewhere.
• Do the numbers actually mean anything? They don't match the ones on the map, though that only has them for two islands.
• The map has the left and bottom cut off so you can't see the labels for 12 and 24.

Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the numbers from the table and fixed the map. Regarding point 1: I think I can expand on the history parts of the lead and see if that warrants a split into a new section. You can take a look at the list after that to see if it passes criterion 3c in your opinion. I will ping you here when I'm done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I compiled the changes in the number of constituencies over time since independence, but it turned out to be quite dry. e.g. Constituency Commission recommended minor change in number of constituencies to X, and that lasts for 1 or 2 elections, followed by another minor change, and so on. No secessions or annexations happened nor did any military coups occur (which would have made this data of more interest). Given that, I haven't added this information to the list.

The numbers on the map seem to be for ease of locating them while looking at the map legend. I've kept the order of the constiuencies the same as it is in the election results of 2021. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Coat of arms of the Bahamas.svg - Public Domain, link goes to an error page which needs to be fixed
• File:BahamianParliamentPanorama.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:The Bahamas on the globe (Americas centered).svg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Bahamas general election map blank.svg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Don't use fixed px size on the images, use |upright if you'd like to make an image with a certain size. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for more.
• All images have suitable alt text and captions.
  • MPGuy2824 Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Arconning: Thanks for the review. I've fixed both of these problems. I also fixed the fixed-width issue in previous constituency FLs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support. Arconning (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Dylan620

Source review in progress; should be finished within the next few hours. One thing I noticed upon starting was that refs 3 and 7 lack archives, which I think should be added so as to maintain consistency with the other refs. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Added archive urls for those 2 refs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Some further comments:

• Ref 1 is a dead link.
• I am choosing to assume good faith wrt ref 3, which I am not able to access.
• The commission conducts a review of the electoral boundaries every five years – The source used to cite this (ref 8) makes no mention of it, but the information is verified by ref 7, so I would recommend adding another cite to ref 7 at the end of this clause.
• Everything else checks out wrt source-text integrity (though one thing about the table did confuse me: is there any particular reason why Freetown is alphabetized before Fort Charlotte and Fox Hill?)
• All refs are formatted consistently.
• All sources appear reliable enough for the information they're being used to cite.

I think that's about it. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 1 is a dead link Marked the url-status as dead.
• The commission conducts a review of the electoral boundaries every five years ref 8 is for the "ensure that there is parity of numbers in each constituency" bit, but I added another citation to ref7 for the first part of that sentence.
• why Freetown is alphabetized before Fort Charlotte and Fox Hill? Good catch. Fixed. It is alphabetized correctly in the election results too.

@Dylan620 Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me, MPGuy2824. Happy to support. Btw, if you have any time or interest, I'd appreciate a prose review on a rather old FLC I currently have up. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 12:52, 26 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Atlanta Flames seasons

Nominator(s): Kline • talk • contribs 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back to round two of me nominating a list for FL! This time, I decided to take a more interesting team rather than one that is currently playing; the Atlanta Flames. As the first iteration (1972–1980) of ice hockey in Atlanta, they had minimal success and could not keep attendance numbers high enough to stick around, so they had to move to Calgary. Might as well give it a go! Kline • talk • contribs 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "Flames played their homes games" -> "Flames played their home games" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "season in 1972 to until their relocation" -> "season in 1972 until their relocation" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "where they both miss the playoffs" -> "where they both missed the playoffs" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "them against 1-seed" -> "them against the 1-seed" I'm not sure about this one. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "The Flames qualified the last in their" -> "The Flames qualified last in their" History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings, series they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." -> "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings, a series they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• "In 2024, an ownership group ran by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta." -> "In 2024, an ownership group run by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta." History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Addressed all comments except the Los Angeles Kings one, these were two different series played in different years. If I am correct, series is the correct plural but I do understand it sounds odd. Not sure how I'd reword it though. Kline • talk • contribs 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks for the clarification. Maybe do "were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, in which they lost 0–2 and 1–2 respectively.". History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done with a bit of different wording. Kline • talk • contribs 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 pinging to make sure you didn't forget :) Kline • talk • contribs 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Resolute

I'm not active enough to decide on a FLC anymore, but I do have to question the final paragraph of the lede. I don't really see much value in an entire paragraph of trivia related to other hockey teams in the city. None of that advances an understanding of what this list's purpose is. Perhaps a mention of the Thrashers' creation to note that NHL hockey did return to the market later, but I personally would not go much farther than that. I'm curious to get input on this from both yourself as nominator, and other reviewers. Resolute 03:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Resolute I wouldn't mind trimming it, but I would like to include at least a couple of sentences post-Flames. Perhaps I can change it into more about Calgary's success rather than just hockey in Atlanta. Kline • talk • contribs 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "marked the 8th and final year of operation" => "marked the eighth and final year of operation"
• "appeared in the playoffs 6 times" => "appeared in the playoffs six times"
• "did not win any division or conference championships, and never advanced past the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs" => "had not won any division or conference championships, and had never advanced past the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs"
• "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders, where they both missed the playoffs" - the use of where doesn't make sense grammatically. I would suggest just "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; both missed the playoffs"
• "ranked 7th and 8th " => "ranking 7th and 8th "
• "In the 1973–74 season, the Flames would qualify for the playoffs" => "In the 1973–74 season, the Flames qualified for the playoffs"
• "pairing them against the 1-seed Philadelphia Flyers in the quarterfinals" => "pairing them against the first-seeded Philadelphia Flyers in the quarterfinals"
• "The Flames would lose the series in a sweep" => "The Flames lost the series in a sweep"
• "The Flames would fail to make the playoffs" => "The Flames failed to make the playoffs"
• "paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, where they would lose 0–2 and 1–2 respectively" => "paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2 respectively"
• "Detroit Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs respectively in 2 games" => "Detroit Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs respectively in two games"
• " the Flames would only win one game out of four" => " the Flames only won one game out of four"
• "bought the franchise and moved them" => "bought the franchise and moved it"
• "From 1999 to 2011, the Thrashers would have very limited" => "From 1999 to 2011, the Thrashers had very limited"
• "2007, where they would also make their only playoff appearance" => "2007, when they also made their only playoff appearance" (2007 is not a location, so "where" is not appropriate)
• "the franchise would be sold" => "the franchise was sold"
• Is there any point in the Key of colors and symbols when literally none of them are used in the table?
• "Playoffs Result" => "Playoffs result"
• I would put the notes above the "see also" so that it comes right after the table
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All comments addressed.. evidently I still have a bit of WOULDCHUCK left in my system :) Kline • talk • contribs 13:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

Note that bolding is just for what should be changed or added

• "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; they both missed the playoffs, ranking as 7th and 8th team in their conference respectively." => "The Flames started play in the 1972–73 season along with the New York Islanders; they both missed the playoffs, ranking as the 7th and 8th teams in their conference, respectively."
• "The Flames qualified last in their division two years in a row and were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2 respectively." => "The Flames qualified last in their division two years in a row and were paired against the Los Angeles Kings twice, losing 0–2 and 1–2,(add comma) respectively."
• "In 1997, the Atlanta Thrashers were founded as an expansion franchise following the relocation of the Atlanta Knights in the International Hockey League (IHL), which had moved to Quebec City, and began play in 1999." => "In 1997, the Atlanta Thrashers were established as an expansion franchise after the Atlanta Knights of the International Hockey League (IHL) relocated to Quebec City; the Thrashers began play in 1999."
• As an affiliate of the Nashville Predators and Milwaukee Admirals, the Gladiators play in the East Coast Hockey League. => As an affiliate of the Nashville Predators and Milwaukee Admirals, the Gladiators compete in the East Coast Hockey League.
• In 2024, an ownership group run by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL start an expansion process for Atlanta. => In 2024, a group led by former NHL player Anson Carter requested that the NHL initiate an expansion process for Atlanta.

The AP (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor All comments have been addressed. I've reworded some of the sentences mentioned differently if you want to check it over again. Kline • talk • contribs 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support on prose atleast. The AP (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• The table needs citations for its data columns, similar to other seasons lists.
• Citation 1: HockeyDB doesn't seem to be a particularly good source, especially when Hockey-Reference is also available.
• Citation 3 does not support the first sentence of the second paragraph.
• Citation 4 does not support most of the information between citations 3 and 4.
  • For both citations 3 and 4, I suggest using newspaper reports to backfill the history where possible, if only to prevent the list from being too heavy on database sources.
• Citation 6 is a self-published blog and need to be replaced.
• Citations 5 and 12 are missing location information for the publishers; the latter should also link to Stoddart Publishing.

Based on this revision; please ping me when replacements and changes have been completed. SounderBruce 06:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce concerns should be addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The table's Conference, Division, and Postseason columns still lack citations. There are also missing citations in the second paragraph, as Citation 5 (1979-80 standings) cannot support all of the information in that chunk of text. SounderBruce 00:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce I have never had a concern raised with conference, division, and postseason columns being uncited, and even then they are covered by the two citations in the regular season column. If you want me to cite those already mentioned I can do so but it seems unnecessary in my opinion. Other concern addressed. Kline • talk • contribs 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

At minimum, the postseason column or the individual results need to be cited. SounderBruce 03:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce Done. Kline • talk • contribs 04:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass source review, but still think that HockeyDB's reliability could be challenged. SounderBruce 05:04, 8 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [13].

---

United States presidential elections in Washington (state)

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC), 金色黎明

This list covers 34 presidential elections in which the citizens of the Evergreen State voted, mostly for the ultimate winner. It is formatted similar to recent election FLs and its data has been double-checked for accuracy. This is a co-nomination with 金色黎明, who nominated this list a month ago before it was quite done. SounderBruce 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

The bolded word(s) signify changes or addition

• during reappropriation based → during reapportionment based
  • Fixed.
• incumbent president Benjamin Harrison → incumbent President Benjamin Harrison
  • Per MOS:JOBTITLE, it seems that this should not be capitalized.
• remains the most only third party candidate to have won Washington's presidential election. → is the only third-party candidate to have won Washington's presidential election.
  • Fixed.
• which was reflected by Democrats and Republicans both holding state offices and majorities in the state legislature. → which resulted in Democrats and Republicans alternately holding state offices and majorities in the state legislature.
  • Fixed.
• Washington had voted for → Washington has voted for
  • Fixed.
• The Cascade Mountains marks the boundary → The Cascade Mountains mark the boundary
  • Fixed.
• Western Washington had been generally characterized as liberal or progresive, while Eastern Washington was characterized as conservative. → Western Washington has been generally characterized as liberal or progressive, while Eastern Washington has been characterized as conservative.
  • Fixed.
• which has the majority of the state's population → which contain the majority of the state's population

The AP (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Fixed. @TheAstorPastor: Thanks for the review, I have fixed all but one of the suggested changes. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey per MOS:JOBTITLE , When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII. - so it should be President Benjamin The AP (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheAstorPastor: Done, also dropped "incumbent" since it's redundant with the last part of the sentence. SounderBruce 05:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose The AP (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

Full review coming, first note is it talks about the total republican vs democrat votes in the lead. I don't know if thats necessary as the paragraph talks about it and the paragraph before talks about Rooselvet being the only third party president. Additionally it's just a repeat of the infobox. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved up the count to make it flow a bit better.

• "The state had a voter turnout of 71.5 percent in the 2020 election—the ninth-highest rate in the United States." This seems like recentism and not particularly relevant. If a turn out column was added to the table it would be alright but alone it seems quite trivial
  • Removed, though I think a turnout column would be great to have (if it can be standardized across all the election tables).
• Why is the bit about the 1892 election important? I know why because its the first but to someone less familiar it just seems like a random example.
  • Added "the first since Washington became a state".
• I feel that the 2016 faithless elector stuff is far too long to keep as a note and should be discussed in the lead. Replacing the note with something like "Clinton earned 12 pledged electoral votes, but lost four to faithless electors."
  • Added it to the third paragraph.
• Good job ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks for the review. I have responded to your comments. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Support I think if sourcing for the turnout column can be found then it should be added. I considered adding a turnout column to my election in Oklahoma list but didn't due to inconsistant sourcing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I couldn't find anything to nitpick :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Source and image review from TheDoctorWho

• The only image is fine for use under a CC-BY license.
• The image needs alt text.
  • The map's alt text is generated automatically by the infobox and seems to work according to this tool.
• Princeton University Press can be wikilinked in Ref 9.
  • Added.
• Ref 17 is published via Substack, is this a self-published source?
  • Replaced.
• Can I ask about the reliability of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections? Despite calling itself an Atlas, it appears that it may also be self-published.
  • Leip seems to be a subject-matter expert in the field of U.S. elections and his data is used by other reliable sources, as listed here. The website has also come up a few times at WP:RSN, most recently in this discussion and consensus seems to approve of its use, even at FLC.
• Washington Secretary of State -> Secretary of State of Washington in Ref 118 for consistency with other uses from the same website
  • Fixed.
• The atlas is consistently wikilinked every time it's used, but other sources such as Secretary of State of Washington and The Seattle Times aren't. Duplicate links are allowed in references, but there should be some consistency here, whether it's only linked on first used or linked on every use.
  • Removed all but the first use.
• Spotchecked references 2, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 21, all checks out. Most references in the table (beyond the atlas) are sources I don't have access too, so assuming good faith on those.

Great work! Just a few questions/comments. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Thanks for the review. I have made the changes suggested and addressed the remaining points. SounderBruce 03:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm satisfied accepting Leip as an expert source after reading over the linked discussion and section on the article. Source and image reviews pass and I'm happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [14].

---

1956 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another Olympic list from me, I'll respond to comments as fast as I can. Arconning (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

• Medals awarded at these cities → Medals awarded in these cities
• 3,314 athletes representing → A total of 3,314 athletes representing
• enacted a boycott against the games → boycotted the games
• their boycott → its boycott
• Bahamas → The Bahamas
• consistent with IOC conventional sorting → consistent with IOC's conventional sorting
• The number of silver medals is taken into consideration next and then the number of bronze medals → The number of silver medals is considered next, followed by the number of bronze medals
• the losing semi-finalists, as opposed to them fighting in a third place tie breaker → the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third-place tiebreaker
• three-way tie and all athletes that placed second awarded a silver medal → three-way tie and all second-place athletes awarded a silver medal
• and women's vault due to a third-place tie in these events → and women's vault due to [remove a] third-place ties in these events
• awarded in women's high jump → awarded in the women's high jump The AP (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheAstorPastor Done! Arconning (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third place tie breaker. → Instead of competing in a third-place tiebreaker, the losing semi-finalists in each boxing event received two bronze medals.

  In Notes

  • 3,155 athletes in Melbourne, 159 athletes in Stockholm → A total of 3,155 athletes participated in Melbourne and 159 athletes in Stockholm.
  • 145 events in Melbourne, 6 events in Stockholm → There were 145 events held in Melbourne and 6 events in Stockholm.
  • An additional bronze medal not included in the table was presented to John Ian Wing → An additional bronze medal, not listed in the medal table, was awarded to John Ian Wing

  The AP (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TheAstorPastor Also done! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose The AP (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Is there a contemporary photo of Keleti. If there isn't then note that the picture is from 2021 otherwise it gives the impression that she was 101 at the time of the games.
• The second image, Habibi, needs to be cited. Just copy over ref 25.
• "holding the gold medal he won at these games." -> "holding the gold medal he won at the games."
• alt text is present
• unrelated but ref 25 is considered dead despite being active. Fix that please

Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "the Bahamas, Iceland, and Pakistan won their first Olympic medals." -> "The Bahamas, Iceland, and Pakistan won their first Olympic medals." The "the" is the first word in the sentence, it should be capitalized.
• "winning four gold medals in two silver medals for a total of six medals." -> "winning four gold medals and two silver medals for a total of six medals."
• The caption for the image of Adhemar da Silva should have a source, I think.
• "two silver medals and no bronze medal were awarded" -> "two silver medals and no bronze medals were awarded" I'm not sure if this is the right way to fix it but having were after a singular noun sounds strange.
• That's all I've got, if these are fixed than I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Done! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, I support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Article has no short description. You should add one that says none: {{Short description|none}}
• A number of references are defaulting to the archived version instead of the live version because of a lack of a the |url-status parameter, please address this.
• Refs 5 and 12 – Note the page number
• Refs 5 and 12 – Add |via=[[Newspapers.com]]
• Ref 5 – Note the agency as Associated Press
• Ref 8 – Add the url-access parameter to note a subscription is required
• Ref 9 – Link to Voice of America instead of the abbreviation
• Ref 13 – Add the url-access parameter to note a subscription is required
• A see also section should be added, as these are relatively standard in these tables and there's a number of relevant articles to link to
• The last paragraph needs an extra source added, as it doesn't verify who led in medals. Consider using this link to verify that info, that's my go to for finding who leads in any medal

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Donezo! Arconning (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "with the equestrian events being held prior from 10 to 17 June 1956" - the word "prior" is a) not grammatically correct and b) not needed as I suspect most readers can work out that June was before November
• "These included first-time entrants" => "This figure included first-time entrants"
• " also being the first games to hold events" => " and the first games to hold events"
• "in response to the Hungarian Uprising, where the Soviet Union invaded the country" => "in response to the Hungarian Uprising, when the Soviet Union invaded the country"
• "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of fighting in a third place tie breaker." => "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, instead of the competitors fighting in a third place tie breaker." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Done! Arconning (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Ref 24 does not match the table here due to the six Equestrian events not being included in the IOC figures. Do the IOC officially recognise them? Is there an alternative source to support the figures listed here or can you switch to the IOC figures with notes added regarding Equestrian events? JP (Talk) 13:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling The IOC does recognize them! I have added a source! Arconning (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [15].

---

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

@25 Cents FC: I think the list is lovely. I only have a few proposals.

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

• If you have time and interest, you can review the list Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/archive1.
• I will support the list if you are able to solve these concerns :) --TheUzbek (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your valuable comments @TheUzbek. I have addressed the list of points you raised. Please have a look and let me know if anything else is required. Thanks again.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support! TheUzbek (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, respectively. – not seeing a need for that comma.

 Fixed

• The chief minister is, therefore, considered the head of government – should be changed to "Therefore, the chief minister..."

 Fixed

• his party (or coalition) – brackets probably not needed here.

 Fixed

• whose council of ministers are collectively responsible to the assembly. – I'm going to presume this means the state legislative assembly but this is a bit ambiguous, not really aware of Indian politics.

My apologies for the confusion, I have simplified the sentence. Let me know if it helps.

• The chief minister's term, if he has the assembly's confidence, is normally limited to five years. – should be changed to "is normally limited to five years if he has the assembly's confidence." Also, he? Five have been women, should probably be changed to "they"

 Fixed Awesome observation.

• amount of powers the officeholder has is in large part influenced by the chief minister. – not seeing a need for "in large part". If it's influenced by other factors as well, you might want to add them.

The sentence means that powers and responsibilities held by the person in that role are largely determined by the Chief Minister. In other words, the Chief Minister has significant influence over the scope of authority and duties the Deputy Chief Minister can perform. I have changed it and simplified the form. Let me know if it works.

• A deputy chief minister usually also holds a cabinet portfolio – usually also is quite a weird word combo, recommend changing it to "can also" or just removing "also".

 Fixed

• Okram Ibobi Singh who was chief minister of Manipur for 15 years and 11 days between March 2002 and March 2017 has been the longest-serving chief minister of the state – commas needed here, specifically after 'Okram Ibobi Singh" and "March 2017".

 Fixed

• I'm not sure what the assembly numbers are for, is that for each assembly elected since the first election was held?

Assembly numbers refer to the legislative assembly a chief minister was/is a part of.

Other than that, good work! I'll probably give a second round of comments once these have been resolved. Kline • talk • contribs 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kline Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have addressed all the points you mentioned. Please review them and let me know if any further adjustments are needed. Thanks again!-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC I would recommend adding "st", "nd", "rd" and "th" suffixes to the assembly numbers but other than that, it looks good! I fixed a super minor mistake myself if that matters :) Kline • talk • contribs 03:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kline  Done Please have a look.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 21:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC; Looks good, support! Added periods to notes. Kline • talk • contribs 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:10, 25 January 2025 (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, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [16].

---

30th Annual South African Music Awards

Nominator(s): dxneo (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Medxvo

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

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

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

All done. As for tabulating the presenters, I just didn't think it would look good since they presented awards and other presenters. dxneo (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess the first, third, and fourth issues are still there. Would you like me to explain further or did you forget to fix them? Also please see Help:Sortable tables#Background colors in sortable headers to fix the sortable tables with a background color issue (just use "background-color" instead of "background"). I also just noticed that most of the FLs of the award shows have the winners and nominees section placed before the performances/presenters sections. Why is it not like this here? Medxvo (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

must've missed them opps. All good now.

---

Question: Why must the table be sortable when there's no rowspans?

• I put the presenter and performances before the awards and nominations because during the show we saw the presenters and performances before the awards haha and I was referencing BET Awards 2024. Should I change it?

dxneo (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think the sortable tables are only used when there are rowspans? It just helps the users to navigate the data, see Help:Sortable tables#Using sortable tables, and also 96th Academy Awards#Presenters and performers from a 2024 featured list for a similar example, which has the sortable table.
• 2024 BET Awards isn't a FL, see Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards for FL references, I'm pretty sure all of them have the winners/nominees placed before the presenters/performances. I also think that the SAMAs performances were between the awards during the show not before them, no? The show even ended with the "Umlilo" and "Manzi Nte" performances :)

Medxvo (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, I moved the section and sorted the table. SAMA 30 opened with performances from Ishmael, Thebe, Skwatta Kamp and so on, before they even introduced the presenters. I watched the whole show live. Anything you'd like to add? dxneo (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Source review - pass

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Unfortunately, the conjoined tables (everything in Winners and nominees) are pretty problematic from an accessibility perspective. Fundamentally the issue is that they are presented like a table of data, but it's actually just boxes stuck together. You can't use pseudo-header rows like that (MOS:COLHEAD), but even if you make every "row" its own table, the two columns aren't really related, it's just that you wanted to save space. Fortunately, there's a way to do exactly what you're trying to do (MOS:LTAB), and it's not hard to fix. See the code in e.g. 54th Academy Awards - add role="presentation" before the class="wikitable" to let screen-reader software know that it's not a data table, just a layout/presentation scheme, and then instead of columns and rows, you just use the {{Award category}} template, or else make each box a div yourself if that seems better to you. See the documentation at the Award category template for instructions on how to convert a psuedo-table to use that template.
• I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 02:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Never done this before. So far I have only used {{Award category}} on the Top 5 categories, can you please verify if I'm in the right direction before I move on. dxneo (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  All done. dxneo (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good! I added in screen-reader-only table captions, but that's minor and I hadn't mentioned it. --PresN 19:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Elias

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

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

A handful of drive-by comments

• I don't think we need two different photos of Tyla right next to each other

Fixed. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, although the category is called (for example) "Female Artist of the Year", it is awarded not to the artist generically, but to a specific recording by the artist////?

Honestly, this has always been something I never quite understood. I mean, it's Female Artist of the Year, I think it's awarded to both. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• What's the difference (apart from one letter ) between "Best Pop Album" and "Beste Pop Album"?

Haha, Best is English and Beste is Afrikaans. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Beste Kontemporêre Musiek Album" - how come this is the only category title not in English? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you said "how come" haha. There are just some things that do not have answers to, but there's Best Contemporary Faith Music Album, Best Adult Contemporary Album (English), and Best African Adult Contemporary Album (Presented by Ikwekwezi FM). Very few are in Afrikaans I guess. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four awards." => "Tyla won the most awards, receiving four." (avoid repeating "award")
• "Kabza de Small received three awards alongside Mthunzi." => "Kabza de Small and Mthunzi received three awards."
• "and R4,600.00 ($311.23) for non-members including value-added tax per entry for all categories" => "and for non-members it was R4,600.00 ($311.23) including value-added tax per entry for all categories"
• "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades; trailing behind was Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" => "Tyla emerged as the most awarded artist with four accolades, ahead of Kabza de Small and Mthunzi with three" ("trailing behind" sounds a bit judgmental)
• "Below is the list of winners highlighted in bold where necessary." => "In the list below, winners are highlighted in bold where necessary."
• In the Main show performances tables, some songs are centred and others are not
• "were in attendance of the main event" => "were in attendance at the main event"
• "Tyla's "Water" lost Record of the Year award" => "Tyla's "Water" lost the Record of the Year award"
• First two tiny paragraphs under "Reaction" should be merged
• "he should've reached out privately" => "he should have reached out privately" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Chris, one thing I did not understand is that "some songs are centred and others are not." So, I don't really know what to fix since I don't see anything wrong, because I did not use {{center}}. Any suggestion on how I can fix this? dxneo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  On my screen at least, the whole column is centred with the exception of some rows with use {{ubl}} (don't know what that is), which seems to have the effect of over-riding the default alignment of the column and making them left-aligned -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  On my screen they were and they still are all centered. I replaced {{ubl}} with <br/>. How does it look now? dxneo (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 15:10, 25 January 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [17].

---

Lists of Green Bay Packers players

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

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

Comments from Staraction

• "Additionally, Packers' players have been recognized nationally for their performance..." -> "Additionally, Packers players have been recognized nationally for their performance..."
  • Fixed! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Should there be periods after the description for each list? I don't think they're sentences - but I'll defer to your judgement!
  • I honestly don't know. They look right to me, but I don't feel strongly either way. If other reviewers feel like they shouldn't be there, happy to remove them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Is "a list of" necessary in the descriptions? Again, I'll defer to your judgement - I just think it might be a little redundant given many of the lists already have "List of" in the article title. Reminds me a bit of WP:THISISALIST.
  • Yeah, I worried about that. Again, happy to defer to other reviewers opinions. The only other way I could see to write it is to list the exact number of players, which would require a lot of updating. This was my way of trying to make a somewhat static list that doesn't need updating, since this is a general, high-level overview LoL. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Images: passed!

• Perhaps swap the Lambeau Field & 1919 team images? Lambeau Field is mentioned in the lede but not later (lest I'm missing something). Otherwise, all images are relevant to the article.
  • The Lambeau Field image shows the retired numbers on the facade, which connects to one of the lists in that section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• All images have alt text and are captioned appropriately.
• All images licensed properly.

That's it from me; support after minor comments above are resolved. (Expected) congratulations on achieving your goal, and well done @User:Gonzo fan2007! Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Staraction! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• For the description of "List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Rookie Team selections", I think this should say "a list of players who selected for a PFWA NFL All-Rookie Team while on the team." to properly reflect other stylings. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Is the link for "Category:Green Bay Packers players" in "See also" necessary since that is already emulated by one of the lists mentioned in the list?

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• • This category includes many other types of players for the Packers, including draftees who never played for the team and players who only were signed to the practice squad. I think this link is fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Kline, I should have my new laptop tomorrow and will work to address these then. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

All responded to or addressed Kline. Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, support! Kline • talk • contribs 15:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTenannt

Would love to see this get promoted. I’ll have a source review shortly Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether the source is linked or not is inconsistent

My formatting is that I link Newspapers and other "print" sources, while I don't like urls. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is WISportsHeroics reliable?

I replaced it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Formatting consistent

I don't know of spot checks are really necessary on this list

That's it, format of the article doesn't really lend itself to a source review so that's the best I got. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you OlifanofmrTennant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh:, does this satisfy the requirement for a source review? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:54, 21 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [18].

---

List of Torchwood episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Torchwood is a British science fiction television programme and spin-off of Doctor Who, centered around former companion Captain Jack Harkness. Consisting of four series broadcast between 2006 and 2011, the programme has garnered a cult following, impressive viewing figures, and wide critical acclaim. Doctor Who itself has several FL's, but I realized that none of the spin-offs did. I've recently cleaned this article up significantly and believe that it would make for a proper addition to Wikipedia's Featured Lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments by OlifanofmrTennant

• Wikilink Chris Chibnall, Catherine Tregenna, Helen Raynor, and Peter J. Hammond in the series 2 table.
• Wikilink Russle T. Davies in the series 3 table
• Source the plot summaries
• Ref 3 should use Template:Cite press release
• There's an extra bracket in ref 28
• Attribute ref 29 to Gizmodo

Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: Done on everything except the plot summaries. MOS:PLOTSOURCE says "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with inline citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary" which is easily the case here TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could probably be made larger
• "In its final two series, Torchwood utilized" - as it is a British show, British spellings should be used and therefore the last word should be "utilised"
• "The programme moved networks once more " => "The programme moved channels once more" (BBC One/Two/Three are not "networks")
• "Subtitled Mircale Day" - second word is spelt incorrectly
• "The term was later seeded in that programmes second series" - apostrophe missing in "programme's"
• "The show centers" => "The show centres"
• "Torchwood specifically centers" => "Torchwood specifically centres"
• "around one of these groups, Cardiff's Torchwood Three which" => "around one of these groups, Cardiff's Torchwood Three, which"
• "is lead by Captain Jack Harkness" => "is led by Captain Jack Harkness"
• "are joined by Rex Matheson and Esther Drummond, an agent and analyst in the Central Intelligence Agency" - is Esther both of those things or are they each one of them?
• "Torchwood had a small number of fictional crossovers with Doctor Who" - I don't think the word "fictional" is needed, as we have already established that the shows are fiction
• "with an appearances in both a 2020 and 2021 episode" => "with appearances in both 2020 and 2021"
• "The first two series of Torchwood were lead" => "The first two series of Torchwood were led"
• "Series 1 focuses on Gwen Cooper, her introduction to Torchwood, and meeting Jack Harkness" => "Series 1 focuses on Gwen Cooper, her first meeting with Jack Harkness, and her introduction to Torchwood"
• "It also focuses on Jack and Ianto's relationship, as well as Gwen and Rhys." => "It also focuses on Jack and Ianto's relationship, as well as that of Gwen and Rhys."
• "Series 4 centres on an event called Miracle Day, where everyone in the world stops dying" => "Series 4 centres on an event called Miracle Day, when everyone in the world stops dying"
• "It also focuses on Jack's past, his immortality, as well as" => "It also focuses on Jack's past and his immortality, as well as"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments by Matthewrb

• Why does the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} have alt text? I suspect that was meant to go on the image...
• Per MOS:ORDER, the Notes section goes after the See Also section.
• Question: Is there a reason we're not using an infobox for this article? I recognize that per MOS:INFOBOXUSE it's not required but this seems to be an excellent candidate to have one.
• The link to They Keep Killing Suzie is a circular link and should be removed.
• For citations 31-34, is there any way to direct link to the data, rather than a link to a form to fill out?

Minor nit picks, this looks good overall. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Matthewrb: I addressed bullet points 1, 2, and 4.

Traditionally, in my experience List of Episode (LoE) pages haven't historically used Infoboxes. Programme pages have Template:Infobox television and season/series articles have Template:Infobox television season, but there's not a specific one for LoE's. I've also brought several of these types of pages to FL before, and the question has never been raised, but if you think it's a problem I could bring it up to the project talk page or something? It's presumably something outside the scope of this single FL.

Regarding the last point, I don't believe so. When the form on that website is filled out, it displays the data without generating a new URL. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Fair enough - that's why I asked questions rather than made statements. If there is not a strong trend toward having infoboxes, then I have no concerns about this list not having one. Same with the URLs, I have no concern as long as the information is cited.

As my other concerns were addressed, I Support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 07:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - the ratings for series 2, episodes 6 to 12 combine the BBC 3 and BBC 2 figures, therefore ref 31 which covers BBC 3 figures probably required on that column and does a note need adding to state this to help explain the drop in ratings for the final episode which was a BBC 2 only broadcast. Adding them together I did get marginally different figures for episode 9 of 3.74m (rather than 3.75m) and episode 12 of 3.70m (rather than 3.69m) so these may be worth a double check. JP (Talk) 11:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling: This was handled in a slightly different method. To avoid having data obscured from both an initial broadcast and repeat combined (while the remaining episodes would only be an initial broadcast) I switched the entire table over to use BBC2 data. BBC3 dates and viewing figures are addressed using endnotes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Dylan620

Source review in progress. One thing I noticed upon starting was that for refs 5 and 7, the access date is given as 1 January 2005, which predates when both of those sources were published. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, they were meant to be 2025. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that – I thought that was the case, and was tempted to fix it myself, but didn't want to assume. Some more comments:

• I noticed that some ref titles are in sentence case, while others are in title case. This should be standardized one way or the other across all refs, regardless of how the titles originally appear in the sources.
• I'm slightly puzzled that only some refs have archive URLs.
• For the sake of consistency with the other refs, I'm not sure if there should be a location field for ref 2.
• Wikilinking BBC in refs 3, 14, and 27 wouldn't hurt.
• Refs 32, 33, and 34 seem to be duplicates, unless I'm missing something?
• Mary McNamara has an article and can be wikilinked in ref 29
• I think it would be a good idea to fill out BBC Three (or at least BBC) as the website for each entry in ref 10.
• Each source looks reliable enough for the information it's being used to cite.
• I did a spot check of twelve refs for source-text integrity: 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 29, 30. Ref 30 is maybe a very slight overstretch because the air dates aren't visible when you click on the link, but I am willing to let it slide because this information is present on each episode's respective page, which all of which are linked to from the cited source.

That's about it, I think! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dylan620: These have all been addressed. Ref 32 is housed within this article while 33 and 34 are transcluded from their respective series articles, which is why the duplicates exist. Essentially, I can't name the define the ref here and use it elsewhere the same way I can when the same ref is used multiple times within the same article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

All looks good to me. I did carry out some minor copyediting while looking the refs over again. Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:54, 22 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [19].

---

List of National Women's Soccer League seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

After ringing in the new year, I saw it fit to spend a quiet holiday finishing a new list about women's soccer. It covers the seasons for the National Women's Soccer League, the best women's soccer league outside of Europe (and perhaps neck-in-neck with them in some respects) and is formatted similarly to the recent Major League Soccer seasons FL that I completed a few weeks ago. SounderBruce 06:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• "NWSL Shield winner prior to the regular season;" - See if "NWSL Shield winner before the next regular season; " works better.
  • Reworded.
• "three times: by the North Carolina Courage in 2018 and 2019, and by the"
  • Done.
• wikilink "Malawian"
  • Per MOS:OL, it seems that linking to nationalities is discouraged; in this case, I think it's best to leave it out to prevent a sea of blue sentence.
• "Western New York Flash (2nd title)" in 2016 - why "2nd title"? - If it isn't a mistake then it deserves a footnote.
  • Fixed the mistake.
• See if you can fix the sorting for the 2020 season. e.g. sorting by "Champion" should lead to that row being at the bottom.
  • Added a sortbottom for the row, though it will force the 2020 row to be at the bottom even when sorting for season (except the default view) and number of teams.
• That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have made several of the fixes you suggested. SounderBruce 02:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support on prose and accessibility. You'll want to add archive links for all the refs before someone gets to the source review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042 comments

• "administration of United States Soccer Federation with eight teams" -> "administration of the United States Soccer Federation with eight teams". There should be a "the" there. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• "each of the league's teams play 26 matches" -> "each of the league's teams plays 26 matches". History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The current version is grammatically correct due to the pluralization of "teams".
• "and a 18–2–6 record" -> "and an 18–2–6 record". Eighteen starts with an e so it should be an not a. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• "share ownership or their home venues" -> "share ownership of their home venues". History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • These are separate clauses; some teams share ownership and/or home venues, other teams share home venues but not ownership.

  That's all I got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Thanks for the review. I have answered your comments. SounderBruce 02:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're welcome. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Is the review complete? SounderBruce 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made larger
  • Done.
• "The National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) is the top-flight professional women's soccer league in the United States alongside the USL Super League" - maybe "The National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) is one of two top-flight professional women's soccer leagues in the United States alongside the USL Super League".....?
  • Done.
• "The first NWSL expansion team was the Houston Dash, who [....] were followed" - subject changes from singular to plural mid-sentence
  • Fixed.
• "each of the league's teams play 26 matches" => "each of the league's teams plays 26 matches"
  • Removed a chunk to make it work better; the original phrasing would be correct due to the "teams" being plural, but it seems to cause confusion.
    • In the original phrasing, the subject of the verb was not "teams" but "each", which is singular..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• "The "double"—a NWSL Championship" => "The "double"—an NWSL Championship"
  • Fixed.
• If the table is sorted based on any other column and then re-sorted by season, 2020 is at the bottom rather than between 2019 and 2021.....?
  • Unfortunately, this seems to be a technical limitation for table sorting, as sortbottom doesn't have column exceptions; I elected to keep it bottom sorted for the sake of the other, non-default columns.
• That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks as always for the reviews. I have made all of the changes suggested. SounderBruce 21:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Just checking in on the status of this review. SounderBruce 22:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I was having a go at seeing if I could come up with a fix for the "the season column doesn't sort correctly" issue. You may be right, it may be insurmountable. Give me a little bit longer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I made a tweak to the sorting. The "COVID row" now sorts at the top rather than the bottom but I think that's also valid and the "season" column now sorts correctly. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Thanks for looking into it! I'll try to remember this trick for the next time it comes up (probably in the Major League Rugby list). SounderBruce 03:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• In the column header of the table, I changed "NWSL Playoffs" to "NWSL playoffs" to match the target article.

That's all I've got. Impressive work as always SounderBruce. Support with the assumption that will be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [20].

---

List of Mingxing films

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

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

Comments from Wolverine

Here are my comments:

• The Mingxing Film Company, based in Shanghai, the Republic of China, released 174 narrative films between its establishment in 1922 and 1938, the year after its closure. I think this can better be phrased. Perhaps you should say something like "The Mingxing Film Company was an entertainment company that was based in Shanghai, the Republic of China (in what is now China) between 1922 and 1938. The company released 174 narrative films" or something like that. The last part of the sentence also makes no sense to me; did the company close its doors in 1937 or 1938?
  • Rephrased to "Mingxing was a film production company based in Shanghai, the Republic of China. It released 174 narrative films between its establishment in 1922 and 1938, the year after it closed in the face of the Second Sino-Japanese War." The company's year of disestablishment was 1937; however, its film productions did continue to be released into the following year.
  • As for the years: Per the source, "On 7 July 1937 the full-scale Sino-Japanese war broke out. A month later Shanghai was caught in war and fell into the hands of the Japanese imperial army after a fierce three-month battle, leaving the International Settlement and the French Concession unoccupied until December 1941. Located in the city’s Chinese sector, Mingxing’s new business premises were occupied by the Japanese and used as barracks following the fall of the district. The company virtually ceased operating from then on.166 Nominally it still existed, and traces of its nominal existence were left. After an initial period of war-time chaos, the spring of 1938 saw renewed popular passion for entertainment as the city gradually settled in the new environment. Four Mingxing films produced immediately prior to the war appeared on the screen". In short, Mingxing closed its doors, but the films themselves still had the opportunity to be distributed. The literature tends to use the 1937 date as the date of disestablishment. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Mingxing's fortunes changed I'm not too sure about "fortunes"

• Changed to "This situation changed" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• and was later distributed throughout China Is this not the Republic of China?

• The pre-1950 Republic of China encompassed mainland China and Taiwan. I can use Republic of China in all instances, but just like List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies used "Indies" after first mention, I believe that China is sufficiently contextualized. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• following the success of Tianyi's Heroine Li Feifei (1925), wuxia (martial arts) films. Following their success, what happened?

• The full sentence is These [films] included further melodramas with moral lessons and, following the success of Tianyi's Heroine Li Feifei (1925), wuxia (martial arts) films. So, in brief, Mingxing began to produce wuxia films over and above its melodramas. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• This expanded to include leftist cinema following the arrival of screenwriters such as Qian Xingcun and Xia Yan, working under pseudonyms, in the 1930s. Not sure what "this" implies and an explanation or a link to "leftist cinema" would be helpful

• Rephrased to "The company's productions expanded to include leftist cinema following the arrival of screenwriters such as Qian Xingcun and Xia Yan, working under pseudonyms, in the 1930s." I'll make a footnote, because apparently we don't have an article on leftist cinema. In brief, though, it was stories produced by communists with explicitly pro-proletarian themes. Given that the ruling Kuomintang was actively hunting communists... it took gumption. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's unnecessary space between the lead and the first section

• I keep removing the space after NOTOC, and it keeps coming back. Not sure why. Removed again — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

• Six separate paragraphs for the lead seems a lot, could it be re-organised into fewer?
• A lot of the last paragraph of the lead seems unnecessary. We don't normally have things in articles like "This list is divided into two tables, one for the Mingxing's silent films and one for its sound films." because the headings make that clear. I would create a L2 heading "List of films" (with the existing headings changed to L3) and have immediately under it just this: "Each table is sorted by release date by default. Titles are given in English-language translations as well as traditional and simplified Chinese. The names of directors are rendered using the Chinese naming scheme wherein the surname precedes the given name. The list only counts fictional films produced by the company and does not include films from other genres, such as actualities."
• Titles starting with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi ChrisTheDude; I've added sort keys to all of the titles starting with articles, and implemented two new headers to keep the lede from looking overwhelming. As there is no TOC, I feel that making it explicit from the get-go makes the list easier to access than removing the introductory sentence. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if I'd addressed your comments to your satisfaction.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Staraction

Hi Chris Woodrich, wonderful work as always! I've got a couple of comments/questions below:

• ...at the Olympic Theatre on 7 October 1922. after two further unsuccessful releases the company... -> note "after" should start with a capital A
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• This list is divided into two tables, one for the Mingxing's silent films and one for its sound films. -> This list is divided into two tables, one for Mingxing's silent films and one for its sound films.
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• Noted that the list only includes fictional films; is Mingxing also notable for its non-fictional films? If so, would it make sense to instead title as "List of narrative Mingxing films", or something to that effect? I understand this is a pretty major change, so let me know your thoughts!
  • Previous examples, like list of films of the Dutch East Indies, did not make that distinction in the title. Mingxing had five cartoons by the Wan brothers, and a number of actualities and newsreels (the literature indicates some dealt with Shanghai infrastructure and KMT projects, while others dealt with local happenings). The scholarship has all been on the company's works of fiction. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good; I'll defer to your more experienced judgement. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Mingxing logo image is missing alt text; otherwise, all images are public domain, captioned properly, relevant to the text, and have well-written alt attributes.

Here's a couple of nitpicks as well; feel free to just leave things as-is if you'd like :) :

• • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• It released 174 narrative films between its establishment in 1922 and 1938, the year after it closed in the face of the Second Sino-Japanese War. -> Between 1922 and 1938, the year after it closed in the face of the Second Sino-Japanese War, it released 174 narrative films. Mostly because I had to take a second to wrap my head around "...1938, the year after it closed in the face of the Second Sino-Japanese War."
  • Sounds reasonable. Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• ...was later distributed throughout China, as well as Southeast Asia. -> wouldn't it be simpler to just state "...was later distributed throughout China and Southeast Asia"?
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
• Productions that have survived include Labourer's Love, the oldest surviving Chinese film, as well as a further twenty-three films. -> Twenty-four productions are known to have survived, including Labourer's Love, the oldest surviving Chinese film.

Again, incredibly thorough and detailed work; well done! Let me know your thoughts (please ping when you respond!) and best wishes for the new year! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, Staraction! Responded above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on images & prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "Zhang Shichuan and another 55 were credited" -> "Zhang Shichuan, and another 55 were credited"
• "In subsequent years Mingxing continued" -> "In subsequent years, Mingxing continued"

I know this is a short review but these are legitimately the only issues I could find in the prose, to anyone else who did a prose review, good job. I definitely think this passes the FLC criteria. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Done both, though I went with a semi-colon in the first instance (I'm not keen on joining two independent clauses with a comma and an 'and'). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, support on grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are reliable and well-formatted. My only comment is a query on why the one Rea cite (ref 12) doesn't have a page number when the rest do. If it's one of those Google Books versions that doesn't include page numbers, it might be worthwhile to add a link to the full cite at the bottom of the page or at least see if you can determine what chapter the relevant piece of text is from. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi Giants2008, it was on page 22 (book was also on De Gruyter, which had pagination). Fixed, and thanks for the source review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [21].

---

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)

Nominator(s): -- EN-Jungwon 12:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

@ChrisTheDude, all done. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Staraction

• "a methodology which had been used since February 3, 2019" -> "a method that had been used since February 3, 2019" or "a method that had been in use since February 3, 2019" potentially? "that" sounds better to me but I'm not entirely sure why(?), methodology -> method since there's only one method? Not entirely sure on these changes; let me know what you think.
• Per MOS:OXFORD, stay consistent with the Oxford comma; I'd suggest "In 2020, the show was hosted by Monsta X member Lee Min-hyuk, NCT member Jaehyun and April member Lee Na-eun" -> "In 2020, the show was hosted by Monsta X member Lee Min-hyuk, NCT member Jaehyun, and April member Lee Na-eun", since the list of songs in the second paragraph would probably be harder to read without the additional commas
• "On the February 23 broadcast "Late Night" by Noel helped..." -> "On the February 23 broadcast, Noel's "Late Night" helped..."
• "BTS ranked three singles at number one on the chart in 2020 achieved with "On", "Dynamite" and "Life Goes On"" -> "BTS ranked three singles at number one on the chart in 2020, with "On", "Dynamite" and "Life Goes On""
• "Their single "On" went on to accumulate 10,627 points on the March 8 broadcast making it the single with the highest points of the year" -> "Their single "On" went on to accumulate 10,627 points on the March 8 broadcast, making it the single with the highest points of the year"
• "...Blackpink also had three number one singles in 2020; "How You Like That", "Ice Cream" and "Lovesick Girls"" -> "Blackpink also had three number one singles in 2020: "How You Like That", "Ice Cream" and "Lovesick Girls""
• "Twice had two number one singles in 2020 achieved with "More & More" and "I Can't Stop Me"" -> "Twice had two number one singles in 2020, achieved with "More & More" and "I Can't Stop Me"."

Images:

• Images are missing alt text
• Images licensed properly (AGF on File:Blackpink in 2020 for PUBG Mobile (derived).jpg, which has the LicenseReview template)
• Images relevant to article
• Images captioned appropriately

Thanks for your work, @EN-Jungwon; please ping me after you review these suggestions, and let me know if you disagree with any of them! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

All images licensed properly - thank you to reviewer Queen of Hearts! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction all have been taken care of. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 04:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon Is it possible to add alt text to the four images in a group? Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Staraction done. Thanks for catching that. -- EN-Jungwon 07:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon In The chart measures digital performance in domestic online music services (5,500 points), social media via YouTube views (3,000 points), album sales (1,000 points), network on-air time (1,000 points), and advanced viewer votes (500 points), a method that had been in use since February 3, 2019 - is the method mentioned still in use? If so, I recommend something like, In 2020, the chart measured digital performance in domestic online music services (5,500 points), social media via YouTube views (3,000 points), album sales (1,000 points), network on-air time (1,000 points), and advanced viewer votes (500 points), a method that had been in use since February 3, 2019, or something similar; right now, the tense difference between "measures" and "had been in use" makes it a little confusing.

Apologies for the large chain of feedback, and let me know if this suggestion makes sense. Thanks (and happy 2025)! Staraction (talk | contribs) 07:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I must have missed that while preparing the list for FLC. Please feel free to nitpick the list. It will help me improve future lists that I'll be nominating :). Oh and Happy New Years! -- EN-Jungwon 08:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Last couple of things from me I think.

• On the February 23 broadcast Noel's "Late Night" helped the boy band achieve their first number one on the chart. -> Finally, on the February 23 broadcast, Noel's "Late Night" helped the boy band achieve their first number one on the chart. - the "finally" is optional but might make the prose flow better. Also please note the comma after "broadcast".
• Is there a source for I Can't Stop Me achieving its third number one in 2021?

Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @EN-Jungwon! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Staraction, done. -- EN-Jungwon 13:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Support on images and prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• It looks like Ten Asia is a subsite of The Korea Economic Daily, which is why Ten Asia redirects there. Could be hyperlinked.
• Ref 10, 25, 90, 101, and 102 – Link Seoul Broadcasting System for consistency with other refs
• Ref 11/78/97/99 vs 14/18 – The first batch uses "StarNews" or "Starnews" while the others use "Star News". Please make these consistent.
• Ref 16 and 35 – Link to Sports Dong-a to match ref 8
• Ref 17 – Link to Hankook Ilbo
• Ref 19 – Links like using Inkigayo as the source would make sense, or at least link to SBS Inkigayo
• Refs 20 and 56 – Link to Herald Pop
• Ref 58 – Link to The Korea Economic Daily instead of Korea Economic Daily]]
• Refs 60 and 65 – Link to Ilgan Sports

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up on this @EN-Jungwon. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, all done. Apologies for the long delay. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [22].

---

1991–92 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Another in the series. Unfortunately the sources for this one lack the full detail that was published for previous years, and in fact they contain some errors (which I've kept in, fearing that I would otherwise be accused of original research). As Stephen Hendry won half of the 18 tournaments that contributed to the rankings, no surprise that he had a substantial lead over everyone else. As ever, all improvement suggestions are welcome. I can provide the relevant extracts from offline sources to reviewers on request. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support by LeeV

• I couldn't find much to worry about so I'm being a bit picky.
• Mike Hines(originally - space missing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Alex Higgins had 25 ranking points deducted from his 1989–90 total and was banned for the 1990–91 by the WPBSA following a disciplinary inquiry and fell from 97th to 120th - whilst this is true, it doesn't quite explain that he had ALL of his points removed and then was given no way to get any more. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Will address this soon. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC))

• I like the table, but (especially on mobile) it's not super easy to tell which column is the one which the points are in. Maybe we should highlight that column? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe, but we'd need to add a non-colour based indicator too, for accessibility. I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking more colscopes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mario Morra pipes to a redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Do we need a succession box AND a template? If we had a succession box, I'd rather it was at the top.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• These have been at the bottom in all lists going back to the 1976–77 one; during that review, ChrisTheDude commented that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." this is the first time I've has the question about whether both are needed, I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I stand by that. Having a succession box floating centrally above the lead like this just looks really weird to me. I've never seen anything like it on any other article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose if you liken it to infoboxes, they often have a next/previous for navigation. I don't know why you'd want a succession box directly above the full list of articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• " The 1983–84 snooker world rankings were the first to take tournaments other than world championship" => " The 1983–84 snooker world rankings were the first to take tournaments other than the world championship"
• Inconsistent capitalisation in "Losing semi-finalist" / "Losing Quarter-finalist". I would say that the former is correct.
• Same goes for "Last 16 Loser" / "Final qualifying round loser" although in this case I would say the latter is correct.
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've addressed those points, please let me know if there is anything else needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from EnthusiastWorld37

• "and was banned for the 1990–91" - missing the word season at the end of this sentence
• The wikilinks for the two UK Championships in the ranking tournaments table can be shortened to just 1989 UK Championship and 1990 UK Championship, respectively, without snooker in parentheses

EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, EnthusiastWorld37. I've addressed those points. I alsoe split the sentence about Higgins's ban into two. please let me know if there is anything else needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

• "Points tariff contributing to the Snooker world rankings 1990–91" should this be 1991–92?

• Yes it should! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• May be my misunderstanding of the ranking system, but the frames total for Les Dodd, Robert Marshall, Brian Morgan, Nick Dyson and Steve Duggan don't add up across the two seasons, did only the higher seasonal figure count or is this an inconsistency like Craig Edwards?

• Dyson was a typo. The others reflect the Snooker Scene and Rothamans Yearbook sources which are the only ones to break out the points over the two seasons. I'll have a look at the rest of the arithmetic and see how many more issues there are. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• I've added notes for the other cases where the points don't add up. I had a look at sources for the ranking lists for the seasons immediately before and after 1991–92, but they don't break out the years, they only have totals, so it wasn't possible to use them to amend the numbers in this list. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Appears to be a few stray dashes in the wrong columns for Dave Gilbert, John Dunning and Mike Darrington and Vladimir Potazsnyk? JP (Talk) 10:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think I've sorted these. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Jpeeling. Hopefully I've addressed your comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

Date formatting is consistent

All sources are reliable

Spot checks didn't identify anything

All three images are licensed by commons

All three images have appropriate alt text

Optionally consider adding Template:Clear after paragraph 3 otherwise the table gets squished down by the image.

Everything checks out Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• I guess that the Xs for Alex Higgins in the 1991-92 season are counted as 0s. The problem is that don't sort like 0s. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, MPGuy2824. They should sort as zeroes now, but for some reson the ranking points column seems to sort slightly differently to the others, although it has the same data-sort-value. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I added a data-sort-type to those columns and it seems to fix the issue. All good now. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [23].

---

List of NFL career passing touchdowns leaders

Nominator(s): ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth National Football League FLC, coming after List of Atlanta Falcons seasons. It was based on a few other NFL record FLs, with a slightly shortened lede per talk page discussions. This is my first FL in almost a year (and was intended to be nominated a while ago lol) so I may be a little rusty, but I believe it fits all the criteria. Thanks in advance to everyone who provides their feedback :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from OlifanofmrTennany

I’ll take a further look later but immediately all I see is in the tables “ref.” Should be “ref(s).” As there is usually more than one citation.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• For the historical leader you should add an overall number. Kinda like on episode lists (example)
• If its constantly being updated maybe add Template:Dynamic list
• I would remove (AFL) as the acronym is nowhere else on the page.

That's all I got ping me when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant:  Done all except adding the dynamic list template. I feel like the wording on that template is a little off, as the list will always be complete (we have all the numbers), just it'll be updated occasionally for a few months during the season. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply I could've sworn I already did this but Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• If you sort the table by team, a player's total career touchdowns is shown against every team he played for, which kinda gives the impression that, say, Brett Favre had 508 touchdowns in one year with the Atlanta Falcons. Not sure how to get round this, though..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Huh, weird. I'll see if there is a way to fix this. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "Brady also is the record holder" - I think "Brady is also the record holder" would read more naturally
• "The longest career passing touchdown record holder was Fran Tarkenton," => "The longest-standing career passing touchdown record holder is Fran Tarkenton,"
• "Since 2020 (6 years)" - we are literally one day into 2025, so is it really six years.....?
• "Tittle's 30 touchdown passes in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) aren't included in this total," => "Tittle's 30 touchdown passes in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC) are not included in this total,"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:  Done all. Also, for the table sorting thing, there is no fix besides placing all the teams in the same cell. I think the status quo is better than that solution, what do you think? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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. You have captions for the legends but not the main tables.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 14:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@PresN:  Done ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tom Brady 2015.JPG - CC BY 3.0
• File:Drew Brees 2015.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0, link leads to a 404 page which needs to be fixed
• File:Peyton Manning passing.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Aaron Rodgers OCT2022 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:CatchyOliphant.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Fran Tarkenton.png - Public Domain
• Every image besides Tom Brady's needs alt text for accessibility.
• Images have suitable captions and are relevant to the article.
  • ULPS Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning: Changed or  Done all. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Good luck on the FL! Arconning (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

• For Aaron Rodgers, the source indicates he has played 248 not 247 matches?
• For Steve Young, the source indicates he played until 1999 not 1997?
• For both Tony Romo and Carson Palmer, the source indicates they started in 2004 not 2003?
• For Dak Prescott, the ref link takes you to Dave Preston?
• For Joe Flacco, Philadelphia Eagles is not listed as a team on the source, did he appear for them and should they be listed?
• Current ref 61 used throughout the second table takes you a passing yards list, should this be a passing touchdown list?
• For Y. A. Tittle, should the games played be 179 rather than 204 as 25 appearances were in the 1948 and 1949 seasons which are not part of NFL statistics?
• In the progression table, you have Y. A. Tittle as being a one-time leader with 242 touchdowns, which includes the 30 that were not included for the first table, is there a way of correcting this inconsistency between the two tables? JP (Talk) 12:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jpeeling:  Done all. For the last, I ended up changing it to remove the 30, it is quite annoying that football reference doesn't include it separately but oh well. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Eagles has been removed for Flacco on the second table but not the first. Do you have any thoughts on the penultimate point regarding Tittle's appearances? JP (Talk) 11:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, got that. I think considering the NFL themselves don't consider AAFC to be part of their stats for whatever reason, we shouldn't include them on an explicitly NFL list, so I ended up removing it. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A few extra thoughts:

• The second table lists the top 26, is there any significant reason for this being the cut off, was it originally a top 25?
• Does the third table require a key?
• The annual passing touchdown list only begins at 1932 and the lead states "The NFL did not begin keeping official records until the 1932 season." so is there any doubt over the accuracy of the numbers for the early progressive record holders? JP (Talk) 14:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  1: No reason, I think it was just a tie that never got updated. Fixed
  2: I would lean towards no, there already are two keys (that are nearly identical, the only reason I would keep the second is because technically it is different). I doubt someone gets to the third section without knowing what "TDs" means or that yellow meant hall of fame.)
  3: This is a somewhat complicated scenario. Essentially people at PFR went back and recorded stats that weren't recorded initially (e.g. sacks before 1982). For passing stats before 1932, they seem to pull from game logs in newspapers and the like. These stats are generally treated as legitimate, the hall of fame for example uses their sacks statistics. PFR is a reliable source, so I lean towards keeping it, but it's not technically the NFL itself releasing the stats. (more info here https://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/sources.htm) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• There were a number of issues with row scopes which I've gone ahead and cleaned up (lots of "rowgroup" used as the scope instead of simply "row", and some "row" used instead of "rowgroup". There was also a bunch of "!row=scope"
• Added a missing column scope
• Merged a duplicate reference
• Should have more than 2 images for a list of this length which includes this many names.
• Ref 6 was the same reference twice in the URL field, making it inaccessible, I fixed this.
• Ref 1 – Add a date
• Ref 1 – Should be The Athletic as the source, not The New York Times
• Ref 1 – Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• Ref 3 – Note link as dead
• Ref 52 – Link to The Coffin Corner and Professional Football Researchers Association
• Ref 53 – Add |via=[[Google Books]] to the reference
• Ref 61 – Inconsistent with other PFR sources, link to Pro Football Reference intstead Pro-Football-Reference.com
• ...classify as running plays. – are classified as running plays would probably be better wording.
• I think the lead could more closely resemble List of NFL annual passing touchdowns leaders, the list that you and I co-nommed back in 2023, and might be better written to explain passing touchdowns.
• Legend could benefit from changing "Active" to "Active player". "Active" feels like it lacks context to me. Active at what? Fitzpatrick is an active commentator.
• Notes could benefit from using player full names and linking to the player's wiki page for those who ends up looking at the note section.

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Think I got everything. Note for the images, I removed them initially as they cause some formatting issues on smaller screens (basically they push the table to the bottom, leaving a ton of white space). I'm not sure how widespread this issue is, but it happens on my laptop. I added two back as a kind of middle ground. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [24].

---

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1982

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

With the 1981 list gathering support, here is the 1982 list for your consideration. This year Paul McCartney had number ones with two different American duet partners and Vangelis had one of the few big US hits by an artist from Greece.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• appeared on Newton's unsuccessful debut album in 1976. – I don't really think Newton needs to be included in the wikilink.
• the theme tune from the film of the same name, for which he had won the Academy Award for Best Original Score in March. – please do rebuke me if I'm wrong but with the way the sentence is set up I don't think there's a need for the comma.
• the lead singer of the Commodores, – if it's going to be spelt "the Commodores", remove "the" from the link. Or you can capitalize it, either way works.
• "Shanghai Breezes" would prove to be his final top 20 appearance on the AC chart – not seeing a need for "prove to", probably can be cut to "would be" or "was his".

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 19:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kline: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sweet, support! Kline • talk • contribs 20:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042 comments

• "also topped Billboards pop chart" -> "also topped Billboard's pop chart" History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• "Denver had been of the biggest music stars" -> "Denver had been one of the biggest music stars" History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's all I could find. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Support, I think this meets the criteria. It is comprehensive because it covers all the songs on the list. The prose has been fixed up during this review. Its stable, follow MOS, is easy to navigate, and it has a lede. So I think this meets the criteria. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Kenny Rogers (7787975438).jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Paul McCartney black and white 2010.jpg - CC BY-SA 2.0
• File:Ronnie Milsap.png - Public Domain
• File:Dan Fogelberg 1974.JPG - Public Domain, links for these need to be fixed as it does not show the source of the image properly
• All images have alt text, proper captions, and are relevant to the article.
  • @ChrisTheDude: Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Arconning: - I replaced the Dan Fogelberg image with one of Vangelis -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

      @ChrisTheDude Alrighty then! Support from me. Arconning (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

NØ

• I can pass the source review. All sources used are reliable for their purposes and the references are formatted properly.
• "a re-recording of a song which had originally appeared on Newton's unsuccessful debut album in 1976" - While the song is described as an obscure album cut, I am not seeing that the album was unsuccessful in the source. Maybe the unsuccessful descriptor could be removed altogether as I am not sure about such a comment in wikivoice anyways.
• "spent the same length of time at number one, and was immediately followed into the top spot by the country singer Ronnie Milsap's recording of the 1962 song "Any Day Now"" - This comma can be removed
• ""Chariots of Fire" spent a single week atop the Hot 100 in May, and was immediately followed into the top spot by "Ebony and Ivory"" - Same with this comma
• "topped both listings, and quickly launched Richie to superstardom" - And also this one.
• "Following his chart-topping collaboration with Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney took a second duet to number one" - Why not just "Wonder" and "McCartney", as there are no other people with the same last names mentioned?--NØ 13:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, all done I believe -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 14:48, 5 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) [25].

---

Municipalities of Tlaxcala

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "16 new municipalities were created in 1995" => "In 1995, 16 new municipalities were created" would avoid starting a sentence with a number in digit form, which probably isn't technically invalid but always looks a bit wrong to me......

• You are absolutely correct, not sure why I didn't notice that before nomination.

• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Might be nitpicky, but I would consider including "1917" in the "Constitution of Mexico" as there happens to be more than one revision. Understandable if it seems a bit odd, not super concerned about it.
• Property tax could be linked.
• In note D, it mentions Sanctórum but it might be worthy to include the name pre-change as that's when it happened.

Other than that, good work! I find it funny that Calpulalpan has to be the odd one out when it comes to the founding date. Kline • talk • contribs 04:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Kline! Those are excellent catches showing a careful review, I've made them all. Thank you! Mattximus (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, support! Kline • talk • contribs 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Kline you uncovered something important accidentally with your Calpulalpan comment. It looks like these dates sometimes report earliest known record of date of incorporation when the official date is unknown. I am experimenting with putting a note to this effect, but I can't figure out how to make all the notes link to one note so it's not repetitive. Any thoughts? I will have to change this with all the other lists once we figure this out. Mattximus (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mattximus pretty sure this can be done with Template:efn. Kline • talk • contribs 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Vista de Tlaxcala.jpg — CC-BY-SA-4.0 — Self-published work — Alt text present
• File:Tapetehuamantla.jpg — CC-BY-SA-4.0 — Self-published work — Alt text present
• File:Panorama de San Pablo del Monte.png — CC-BY-SA-4.0 — Self-published work — Alt text present
• File:Vistas de Apizaco, Tlaxcala 03.jpg — CC-BY-SA-4.0 — Self-published work — Alt text present
• File:Tlaxcala in Mexico (zoom).svg - CC BY-SA 3.0 — Self-published work — Alt text present

Suggestions

• Spelling of "aerial" in the alt text for Tlaxcala is wrong - Kindly rectify that.
• Change the alt text for Huamantla to something like this : "Decorative sawdust carpet, Huamantla"

Please ping me when you have made the changes. The AP (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review The AP ! I have completed both of your requests. Mattximus (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass Image review and support on prose The AP (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review – Reference reliability looks okay, and the link-checker tool showed no issues. A couple of little formatting tweaks to consider:

• Refs 1, 2 and 7 could use en dashes in the title to replace the hyphens per the MoS.
• The ISBN formatting is done three separate ways. I think 13-digits with hyphens is the preferred method (IIRC), but either way they should be made consistent throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Giants2008! I fixed the hyphens and made all ISBN formatting consistent at 13 digits but no hyphens. Is that ok? Mattximus (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The changes look good. I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 16 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [26].

---

List of Vegas Golden Knights seasons

Nominator(s): The Kip ^(contribs) 08:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Continuing in the project laid out at WP:VGK, here's another FL candidate. Tables already seemed adequate, though at the direction of PresN from some months ago I added the ongoing 2024–25 season for length reasons; otherwise, I expanded the lead based off other NHL season FLs, and added graphics. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Brief comment by myself to potential reviewers - I will be without access to a laptop/desktop from December 29 to January 1, so I will be limited in what updates I can make to the article during that time. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Lead image caption isn't a sentence so should not have a full stop
• 2017-18 NHL season is linked multiple times in the lead
• Note a is surely not needed as (unless I am missing something) it just duplicates the earlier key
• Note c needs a full stop
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Wowza, thanks for the quick reply! All have been taken care of. The Kip ^(contribs) 09:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Kline

• six times in their first seven completed seasons, First is unnecessary as they haven't finished any other seasons (or seven of them for that matter).
• the Golden Knights instead suffered a rash of injuries and poor play, eventually missing the playoffs for the first time in franchise history. Is "instead" necessary?
• first-round exit against the San Jose Sharks the following season, Something about the link going to the Stanley Cup playoffs from "the following season" seems misleading, perhaps a rewording is required.
• Recommend changing the "Season" header to "NHL season".
• Notes 1 and 2 in the year-by-year section can probably be converted into actual notes, considering there's already 3 notes in that table.

That's all I got. Kline • talk • contribs 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kline Fixed everything but the "instead" bit - I figured that's necessary as a contrast to the fact they entered the season as Cup favorites. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I now see how I've already set up the contrast with "Despite." The Kip ^(contribs) 20:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Good work, support. Kline • talk • contribs 21:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

QoH

Hello, haven't done one of these in a while.

• Images need alt text and should not have fixed size (ie. 300px); replace it with the upright parameter (ie. |upright=1.35 for the lead image and 1.2 for the image of T-Mobile Arena).
• The year by year and all-time records tables need column and row scopes, see MOS:DTT; the cells at the top and bottom should be changed from ! Foo to ! scope="col" | Foo or from ! rowspan="2" | Foo to ! scope="colgroup" rowspan="2" | Foo for headers that use rowspan or colspan. The "main" cell for each row, probably either the NHL season or the Golden Knights season, should be changed from | 2017–18 to ! scope="row" | 2017–18.
• Likewise, those tables need captions showing what's in the table; they can be added using |+ caption at the top. You can also add the references for those tables to the caption.
• Perhaps add a note for why the Knights weren't in a conference during the 2020–21 season.
• The empty cells for 2024–25 annoy me; perhaps add something like | colspan="14" | ''Season ongoing''?

I think that is all, please let me know if any of this is confusing. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts Think I've addressed everything! The Kip ^(contribs) 07:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip, the all time records table still needs scopes; otherwise looks good. charlotte ^👸♥ 18:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts Think I've fixed it, also noticed I hadn't added colgroup to the bottom of the seasons table. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• The list would be improved with the usage of the abbreviation template for column headers. I understand the key is there, but it's still a useful thing to add for those who don't want to scroll up.
• "All-time series record" in the all-time records table could be explained for those unfamiliar with what a series may be, even if done via note.
• I think in the results tab it would be helpful to link to Stars / Jets again. I understand some avoid duplicate links, but I think contextually, it's easier to find the team they're playing against by clicking there instead of scrolling back up to find the first mention of "Jets" or "Stars". I recognize this is a personal preference and would not stand in the way of the list being promoted, but I'm suggesting it because I think it will improve the list.
• References mix "nhl.com" and "NHL.com". Personally, I think this should be National Hockey League, since that's the platform they're being posted on and to match references 2, 10, and 12.
• Ref 5 – Link to Hockey-Reference.com. Also, when is somebody just going to go ahead and make that article? Daaang...
• Ref 8 and 9 – Link to ESPN
• Ref 10 – Add author
• Ref 10 and 12 – Link to National Hockey League
• Ref 11 – Change abc7.com to KABC-TV.
• Ref 11 – Add Associated Press as the agency
• Ref 15 – Use Sportsnet as the source instead of SportsNet.ca
• Ref 15 – Add Associated Press as the agency
• Ref 16 – Wikilink USA Today
• Ref 19 – Link to The Athletic
• Ref 21 – No need to pipe United Press International, use the full name instead of the acronym

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh:

1. I've done it, though it feels a bit redundant with the key - I don't see a lot of other hockey FLs with it.

2. Done to the best of my ability.

3. I've opted to link specific team seasons, so it avoids duplicates.

4. Done. That said, I've opted to only link the first instance.

5. I did so, though it feels redundant with Sports-Reference already linked.

6. Linked it in 8, but feels redundant to subsequently link it in 9.

Rest are all taken care of, changed a few publisher= to work= for the various newspapers. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1. I can understand it feeling redundant, and there's no definitive requirement of that in this case, but I do think it improves a table when people can hover instead of scrolling up and down.

2. Hmm, I think it could still use a slight bit of work. What do you think of this edit I made? I also changed the footer on that table to make it clearer that it's about playoff series. Of course feel free to tweak as necessary.

4. Drat, my least preferred method of reference formatting, but one that's perfectly acceptable. You are consistent in this so that addresses my comments regarding linking.

I'll say support now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I'm good with the series description, it's a better one than I wrote lol. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - current ref 6, which links to the season by season record, has different GF/GA figures for every season? Is there an alternative source for the whole table or those columns? JP (Talk) 09:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling I can't find a singular source, but my assumption would be the NHL records (which are the same on HockeyRef) discounting the "goal" credited for/against in shootout wins and losses, given that all the totals are just a few goals off. The easiest ref would be individual standings from each season, but I feel like adding eight extra refs would be overkill - the seasons themselves, with their standings tables, are linked anyways. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling Seeing as NHL.com, Hockey-Ref, and Statmuse all use the no-shootout totals, I'll edit the table to use those - I'll leave the season articles alone though, as I don't want to introduce confusion with the official standings. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [27].

---

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

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

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

Comments

• MOS:ALLCAPS: all the reference titles need to be converted to title case
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• MOS:ACRO1STUSE: all of the states should be written out in their first use; that said, you can utilize {{abbrlink}} to accomplish the same thing and save space
  • {{abbrlink}} wouldn't do anything different than the piping you have brought to issue. I have unpiped the abbreviations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• each have one Academic All-American of the Year for each division "each" is not needed in this sentence
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• and three of them have been recognized with this award a total of four times unclear who "them" is referencing
  • Is Titans any clearer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

• Sources for first two paragraphs?
  • I'll spend some time with this next week.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• "As of January 31, 2024, Illinois Wesleyan University has had the most men's basketball Academic All-America honorees,[7] and three Titans have been recognized" - "Titans" = "Illinois Wesleyan University"? Is this considered to be common knowledge?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Then, Alec Kessler (1990), Todd Fuller (1996) and Emeka Okafor (2004) also won" - don't think "Then" is needed here
  • correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Cooper Cook (2018) have one the Division III award" - that's the wrong "one" there :-)
  • oops.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, courtesy ping to see if your comments have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Just waiting on sourcing for the first two paragraphs...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Wow! This March 2024 diff shows that until then we had no college division winners listed before 2000 and no idea that there where any before 1996.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      • I have no idea where the 1996 date came from when I created the page on March 23, 2011-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
        • I have found one source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• " New Mexico,Oklahoma, Texas" -> " New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas"
  • Good eye. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• "but after the 2017–18 school year the National" -> "but after the 2017–18 school year, the National"
  • Another one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• "the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics" -> "when the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics"
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• "Canadian colleges and institution not affiliated" -> "Canadian colleges and institutions not affiliated"
  • OK-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• "The remaining schools initially still comprised the College Division, but after the 2017–18 school year the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) division split off, the College Division has been limited to Two-Year Colleges, Canadian universities and Canadian colleges and institution not affiliated with the NCAA or NAIA." is a very long sentence, I think it should be split.
  • Somewhat less cumbersome now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Ping me when these are done and I'll support for prose and grammar, unless other issues arise. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @History6042:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Alright, support on grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review passed; ChrisTheDude's concerns addressed; promoting. --PresN 20:42, 15 January 2025 (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, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [28].

---

List of Chivas USA managers

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

  Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. I've fixed each of those points. Brindille1 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Apologies if I duplicate anything from ChrisTheDude above.

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

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

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

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:42, 15 January 2025 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [29].

---

Endemic flora of the Chatham Islands

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

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

• Comment – I've since added images for Macromitrium longirostre var. ramsayae, Sarcodia linearis, Gigartina grandifida , Lessonia tholiformis, Landsburgia myricifolia, and Pyrophyllon cameronii. Ceramium chathamense seems to be fairly rare, and the only images I could find for it are from the Te Papa Museum, which licenses them under 'All Rights Reserved'. Thus, unless 1) somebody is able to contact the museum and somehow convince them to release it under their usual CC BY 4.0, or 2) someone else physically goes to the small fishing village of Kaiangaroa where it lives, it's not feasible to have an image at this time. Between this and the list itself suitably using an overhead map of the Chatham Islands as a visual aid for the rest of the list, I think this easily meets criterion 5(b). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – What I'm unconvinced of is that this meets 5(a) or 5(c). For 5(a), every subject in this article is by convention considered inherently notable by nature of being an attested taxon (being generous, we'll leave out subspecies and varieties). Thus, "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked" should at most include a few of the items (if any), but I count 30 (a majority) which are redlinked, including a lot of species, and that's quite a lot of work to overcome that issue. Regarding 5(c), the alt text for the top image is fine, but the alt text for all of the images in the tables is just the singular word "plants". This provides functionally no information to a reader who can't view the image. This is similarly a lot of work, but it's necessary. I haven't examined the other criteria yet. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  From what I understand, that's as minimum a proportion as reasonable is redlinked; since species are notable by default, there's really no way around that (until those get created, but then it wouldn't be a matter of this article anymore). I think PresN would be the person to ask here, as they've had to finagle with redlink-prone species lists before.

  As for the alt-text, oops, I forgot to change it from the default. I'll go fix that. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  5(a) is pretty subjective, and in practice seems to be treated as "don't link a ton of non-notable items because it's ugly". I've only seen it brought up in the last few years for lists of only redlinked items. In this case, I don't think it's aesthetically offensive or inappropriate to redlink the plants that haven't been stubbed yet, so I'm fine with this list from a 5(a) perspective. --PresN 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really have strong opinions on 5(a) (I don't think the alternating red and blue is bad from an aesthetic perspective as long as it's not for the sake of possibly non-notable clutter), and I'm less familiar with FLC, so I think I'm going to take a look at other criteria and re-evaluate 5(c) once the nom is done with that aspect. Appreciated. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Regarding criterion 4, I'm wondering about the possibility of sorting this list. The first column for the name is already pre-sorted alphabetically (I don't think somehow being able to sort by the nickname or locale would be useful, and sorting by the description year wouldn't be worth putting the authority in its own column), but two things I find I would like to sort by are the family (to cluster them together to better understand where things fit together taxonomically) and the NZTCS assessment (thus, for instance, I could look at all of the ones that are 'Declining' as a cluster). Thus, I'm not sure that 4 is met if there's no way to sort the table. PresN, do you know if something like that is easily implemented? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TheTechnician27: Not making a statement on if it should be sortable or not, but I added a "sortable=yes" option to the table template. --PresN 21:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, that was my only objection to criterion 4, and I think it now unambiguously passes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• 6 – I think this is easily met (list just created, and there hasn't been any edit warring etc.).
• 5(c) – Met except for alt text, which the nom has stated they intend to take care of (and must before the nom can succeed).
• 5(b) – Met as well as we can (see above).
• 5(a) – Seems ambiguous but fine subject to the above interpretation.
• 4 – Met.
• 3(c) – Seems met: (i) enough sources talk about the Chatham Islands' endemic flora for notability, (ii) this is close to but not a direct fork of flora of the Chatham Islands by nature of being only endemic flora, (iii) it has more than enough items, and (iv) a list this large can't reasonably be included in a related article.
• 3(b) – I'll have to check for accurate sourcing and no close paraphrasing, but at a glance, all statements are at least sourced (the last sentence of the lead technically isn't, but the sourcing is in the table directly below it).
• 3(a) – This one concerns me at present, not for its status right now but for its maintainability. The Department of Conservation says there are 47 endemics, we list 47 taxa, and a spot check of these shows that they're endemic. Thus, this seems correct right now, but I'm curious how this can easily be audited; is there an external list of all the endemic taxa? If not, then it seems like the process for auditing this article is 1) checking the number the Department of Conservation gives, 2) counting our list to make sure there's numerical parity, and then 3) checking each species' individual source to make sure it's endemic. That doesn't seem sustainable unless there's an outside list.
• 2 – I think the species names in the lead should use common names (with scientific in parens) as much as possible, as five "bare" scientific names in quick succession will smack an average reader like a truck. It might also be worthwhile for the lead to briefly mention nonvascular plants since those have their own table, but only if it can be done organically. Lastly for now (this is just at a glance), the third sentence of the lead talks about divisions (I believe the DoC calls these "affinities") based on their relationships to mainland New Zealand, but this is never followed up on (I don't think it necessarily has to be, but putting it as the third sentence heavily emphasizes it).
• 1 – Seems met: the lead is well-written from a technical perspective, and I see nothing wrong technically with the entries in the tables either. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – Lecanora kohu is not a member of the flora (it is funga) and as such shouldn't be on a listing of endemic flora.
• there are several unlinked authorities that have articles (de Lange, Heenan, Vitt, Agardh, W.A.Nelson) Esculenta (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Esculenta: I'm obviously inclined to trust your expertise here, but it seems very inconsistent whether sources include lichens under "flora" or not. On-wiki for example, Flora of Scotland (GA), Flora of Madagascar (FA), mention lichens. On Google Scholar, the phrase "Lichen flora" has nearly 20,000 hits.

  Great catch re: the authorities though. Got to those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is because the adoption of the word "funga" is a recent thing, so pre-2021 (or so) sources simply wouldn't be using that term. Regardless, the first sentence of the lead links to the word flora, and that article makes it quite clear that it refers to plants, and mentions the other two analogous terms. If you insist of leaving it in, I think it needs to be made clear (in a footnote?) why an entry corresponding to the outdated terminology is being listed. Esculenta (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah nah, I took it out - I was more just confused than anything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think too that there could be incorrect family names. This is just speculation as I've only found one incorrect one, but for example, Landsburgia myricifolia is in the family Sargassaceae, not Lessoniaceae. I'm going to go ahead and check all of these just to make sure this is the only one, since this was likely a typo from Lessoniaceae being in the row above. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, Austroderia turbaria's is ostensibly incorrect as well, so I am going to have to run through all of them. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TheTechnician27: Added the alt text along the lines of previous plant FLs - just checking in, are the families all okay now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I checked all of the families, and they're all good now. With alt text in place, nothing else I've mentioned is a deal-breaker, although I think we should say "46 are endemic to the islands" followed by a footnote that one of them is a fungus and thus we don't count it. The de Lange et al. source provides most of these species in the list, and what few aren't on there for one reason or another can be verified via the individual refs. I think that the points in 2 should be addressed but that these aren't enough to sink it below FL criteria.

  Finally, while I disagree with the interpretation that 5(a) only means not to include extraneous redlinks, I also think that enforcing the interpretation that all or most of them should be bluelinks if they're notable creates a perverse incentive for a FL nominator to create rushed stub versions of these articles with no regard to usefulness (whereas articles are ideally created by someone actually invested in them so they don't languish as stubs forever). Thus, while I think the above interpretation of 5(a) is contrived, I also see it as the healthiest.

  Bit of an aside, but I think flora of the Chatham Islands, unless it's substantially improved, should just be redirected here until someone's ready to make it any good.

  Support for now, although as this is my first review of a featured list candidate, I'm going to continue to check back in to see if anyone brings up something I've overlooked. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• All AlgaeBase sources – Remove "World-wide electronic publication, " from the reference
• All AlgaeBase sources – Based on what National University of Ireland, Galway links to, I'd assume it's better to link to University of Galway. The footer on the site also has an image that seems to reflect that this is the proper name.

That's all I've got. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just following up @Generalissima. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Oops, sorry that took me a second to get back to. That was actually cooked on to the template - but I corrected the template, and so corrected this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

• Just a note for transparency: I am responding to a general request for feedback from the Discord.

Prose

• flora of the islands was - Flora is plural in this instance, so "were" seems to make more sense
  • Fixed. - G
• The flora of the islands was described from samples in the mid-1800s by botanists Joseph Hooker and Ferdinand von Mueller, neither of whom ever visited the islands, - islands ... islands
  • Fixed. - G
• One endemic - is "endemic" a noun like it is used here?
  • Yep! - G
• The archipelago comprises 40 islands and rocks. - Feels like a name wouldn't be amiss here
  • Added. - G
• Although many of the endemic taxa are threatened due to naturalized flora and grazing by livestock, the populations of many species have rebounded since the 1980s due to widespread environmental regeneration practices. - Due ... due
  • Fixed. - G

Image review:

Due to the number of images, I will only highlight issues

• File:Gigartina grandifida plate A023146.jpg - Is it worth cropping closer to show parts of the plant better?
  • Done. -G
• File:Landsburgia myricifolia plate BM000563297 (cropped).tif - Is it worth editing to show only the plant?
  • Done. -G

All images have alt text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: Responded, thank you very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Looks good. Happy to support. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [30].

---

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1981

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

With the 1980 list gathering support, here's the 1981 list. In this particular year there were two totally different and unrelated number ones with the same title.....sort of..... Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

• "Rabbitt's song was one of two tracks which reached the number one spot on both the AC and country charts as well as on the Hot 100 during the early part of 1981". -> "Rabbitt's song was one of two tracks which reached the number one spot on the AC, country and Hot 100 charts during the early part of 1981".
• "The two songs were among just four country songs to top the Hot 100 during the 1980s, and the only two to do so consecutively." I'm unsure how this pertains to the Adult Contemporary chart.

Those are the only comments I have. Good work Steelkamp (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: - both points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• In the issue of Billboard dated January 3, – it might just be me but i feel like this could be more concise, perhaps like the following: "In the January 3 issue of Billboard,"
• by the country music singer Eddie Rabbitt, which also topped Billboard's pop singles chart, – why say "country music" if "music" isn't going to be added to the end of "pop"? Either slash "music" from "country music" or add "music" to the end of "pop".
• and this was immediately followed into the number one position by "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" by Christopher Cross, from the film Arthur. – is "into the number one position" necessary? perhaps it could be moved to the end of the sentence. As it is right now, the sentence doesn't flow in my head.

Other than that, you're all set! Good work. Kline • talk • contribs 18:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kline: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Kline • talk • contribs 21:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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

I got nothing. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Staraction

• Image review:
  • All images relevant to article
  • All images licensed properly
  • All images captioned appropriately
  • All images have alt text except for that of Air Supply
• ...which reached the number one spot on the AC, country and Hot 100 charts during the early part of 1981 -> Should "country" begin with a capital letter, as it's the name of the Billboard chart in particular, not the genre as a whole?

Thanks for your wonderful work as always, @ChrisTheDude; please ping me once you've addressed these comments! And best wishes for the new year :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• • @Staraction: - alt text added for Air Supply. and I think country with a small C is fine, because it is being used generically. If the actual title of the chart (Hot Country Singles) was shown then obviously capitals would be appropriate, but the single word "country" by itself isn't the title of the chart and is here being used as a generic descriptor of the chart..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sounds good; support on images and prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [31].

---

List of accolades received by Hidden Figures

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• Recipients starting with quote marks should sort based on the first actual word as if the quote marks weren't there
• That's all I got!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  That was so quick, @ChrisTheDude! Sorted, I think. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I wasn't expecting that, you've made it so that they sort based on the name of the first name person. I was meaning that they should sort based simply on the first actual word i.e. "I See a Victory" should sort under the letter I. Now I am confused as to which is correct.......... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, and I misunderstood your initial comment. Sorted properly this time, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco

Image review

File:"Hidden Figures" Film Celebration (NHQ201612100023).jpg - Correctly labelled as PD; ALT text is detailed and grammatical

Prose

• Are the figures old enough that {{inflation}} would make sense here?
• Trivialised, recognised - per WP:NATIONALTIES, these should use American spelling — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling, @Crisco 1492. I don't think {{inflation}} is necessary here. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. Happy to support. Nice and tight, well written, and detailed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Source review

I’ll have the review done shortly 07:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ref 1 only says its based on the book nothing about weather its a "loose" adaption

Removed.

• Why does ref 10 quote the source but none of the others

Removed.

• Ref 14 has 323 reviews not 325 reviews. Though the score is the same

Changed.

• How reliable is The Central Minnesota Catholic?

It's the magazine of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint Cloud and the only thing I could find for the Christopher Awards. It's got an editing team and the information in the article was provided by the Catholic News Service.

• How reliable is Next Best Picture?

Same as AwardsWatch I'd say. Self-published, but the author is a member of the Critics' Choice Association, and the article used only contains factual information (winners/nominees) and no predictions or anything of the sort.

• How reliable is Women in Hollywood?

Also self-published. It was the only place I could find that had the full list of WFCC nominations.

• Why is The Central Minnesota Catholic the only source to have a location? And is it actually New York because that's kinda funny for something labeled Central Minnesota

Source has New York City as location but I suppose it's unnecessary. Removed, and I've added Catholic News Service as the agency instead.

• Formatting is consistent
• Spot checked 20 refs at random and everything lines up for the most part
• Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: see above. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

For women and Hollywood, I would remove anything that cant be sourced to UPI or found elsewhere. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant, removed. Thanks for the source review. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:14, 12 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) [32].

---

1992 Summer Olympics medal table

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

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

Comments

• "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" => "were included as official medal events for the first time"
• "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" => "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia"
• "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes?
• "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile"
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "were included as official medal events for the first time ever" -> "were included as official medal events for the first time" – Good catch, done.
• "Also former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" -> "Two other former Soviet republics, Estonia and Latvia" – Yes, definitely better, done.
• "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 of them winning" - 37 athletes? – It's meant to represent that the NOCs received at least one gold medal. Well this is doing my brain in a bit... I've used this wording on several FLs now, but I can definitely see it both ways now. Agh, do you have any suggestions?

• I think "Athletes representing 64 NOCs received at least one medal, with 37 NOCs winning at least one gold medal" would work.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. I'll make the changes to my other FLs as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, Croatia,[21] Israel,[22] Malaysia,[23] Namibia,[24] Qatar,[25] and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals" - I think you can lose "meanwhile" – Done.

Thanks as always for the helpful review and tweaks ChrisTheDude!

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia competed independently, as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia, for the first time following the breakup of Yugoslavia. – based on the other dissolutions, breakups, and such, I don't see the need for "as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia".
• and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals. – why is this separate from the countries just listed?
• said to have intentionally dropped or thrown his medal + but he threw it again. – did he throw it the first time or no?
• There were some misplaced periods, but I fixed those on my own accord.

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• ... based on the other dissolutions, breakups, and such, I don't see the need for "as opposed to as a part of Yugoslavia". – So this is where it got kind of complicated for me. You see, Slovenia (in 1912) and Croatia (in 1900) actually competed as part of the Austrian NOC before. There's a bit of a complicated history with teams competing with / as part of Yugoslavia, and I thought by including that I was adding clarity. To be honest I could go either way, so if you think the article is better served by its removal, then I can go ahead and do so. I would like to find a different place to link Yugoslavia at the Olympics though if that's removed, as I think the article does provide some interesting and useful context.
• and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals. – why is this separate from the countries just listed? – I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. Is this to do with me listing nations and putting the reference for said nation immediately after the punctuation (comma)? I typically do to avoid ref groups, and to make it clear which reference is relevant to said country/text, instead of putting it all at the end. The ref for that is at the end of the sentence because there's no punctuation to put it after and we don't put references in the middle of a sentence, so this has been my practice and hasn't been an issue in the past.
• said to have intentionally dropped or thrown his medal + but he threw it again. – did he throw it the first time or no? – I think there was ambiguity when I was first writing it out and reading about it, but I felt more confident as I read more and more, especially based on the IOC ruling and writings. I left this ambiguous when I shouldn't have, and I've removed the dropped part given the sources used pretty clearly state he threw it.
• There were some misplaced periods, but I fixed those on my own accord. – I did actually revert one of those, but the first one was definitely a mistake. It's intentional, meant to note that the gold that Lithuania won was actually also the first medal of any kind. It's been something that's been noted in other lists as well, and I've received feedback to separate it out, while also not including it in the following sentence to distinguish it while also avoiding making the sentences more clunky.

Thanks for the review @Kline, I hope I've addressed your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh The Slovenia point was my fault as I read it with the comma, sorry about that. I'm not super concerned about the Yugoslavia thing now since you have explained and the rest have been addressed. Support. Kline • talk • contribs 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "It was also the first Olympic medal of any kind for Lithuania, Croatia, Israel, Malaysia Namibia, Qatar, and Slovenia won their nation's first Olympic medals." In that sentence it is saying first Olympic medal twice, I'd suggest deleting one of them. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Those were actually meant to be two separate sentences, but Kline mistakenly thought it was meant to be a comma. It now reads as two separate sentences, as it was originally meant to. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, thanks for letting me know. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• "South Africa, who had been excluded from the Olympics" -> "South Africa, which had been excluded from the Olympics". South Africa is not a person. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Fixed, thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• "for its use of apartheid system in sports" -> "for its use of the apartheid system in sports". Addition of a definite article.

  @History6042: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, I couldn't find any other issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, one more thing, "third place tie breaker." -> "third place tiebreaker." History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review and comment

• File:Romas Ubartas by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Tie Break Tens Vienna 23.10.2016-51 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Susi Susanti (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Images have proper alt text, relevant to the article, and have suitable captions.
• Bosnia-Herzegovina, why is it hyphenated rather than being "Bosnia and Herzegovina"?
  • @Hey man im josh: Here are my comments. Arconning (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying Arconning, I actually don't have a good explanation for the Bosnia and Herzegovina. I've made the fix. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Just pinging as a follow up @Arconning. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support, just fell asleep my bad! Arconning (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

• Everything is wikilinked
• And from reliable sources
• Ref-47 isn't archived, the rest are
• Consistently and properly formatted
• Spot-check on 14 refs(1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 23, 47, 32, 35, 38, 40, 18(medal table))
  • ref-17 says 1964, page says 1968
  • ref-40: nothing that says it was the only tie outside gymnastics, or that there were only 8 ties in gymnastics- which might be WP:OR (I'm not sure)

@Hey man im josh: just these 3 issues, so a support from my side once they are done, as it meets all 6 criteria. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review @DoctorWhoFan91!

• Ref-47 isn't archived, the rest are – IABot didn't catch the archive, but I manually added it.
• ref-17 says 1964, page says 1968 – Good catch, fixed.
• ref-40: nothing that says it was the only tie outside gymnastics, or that there were only 8 ties in gymnastics- which might be WP:OR (I'm not sure) – Instead of making the claim that that was the only other tie, I changed the wording to In women's solo synchronized swimming there was also a two-way tie for first, which resulted in two gold medals and no silver medals being awarded. As for the 8 ties in gymnastics, I added this overview of the rhythmic gymnastics event, and this overview of the artistic gymnastics events, which reflect that there were "only" 8 ties (I say only because that's actually quite a bit for one sport :P).

I hope I've addressed everything to your satisfaction, but please let me know either way, and thanks again for the review @DoctorWhoFan91! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, everything has been addressed, and the two new refs are also properly formatted and archived. (Yeah, more events with ties than those without :D) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2025 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [33].

---

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

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

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

Comments

• "was group O-Zone." => "was the group O-Zone."
• "was the first song performed in native Romanian" => "was the first song performed in Romanian"
• "and reaching number 72 in Japan and number 16 on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart." - not to be biased towards my native UK, but I would think that getting to number 3 in the UK is a far more noteworthy achievement than either of these

I agree. I changed the sentence to include the UK peak instead of the other charts.

• "reaching numbers eight, 19 and 16, respectively." => "reaching numbers 8, 19 and 16, respectively."

Numbers below 10 should be written out per MOS:NUMERAL.

....which also says "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: You are right! I did not see that before. Fixed it now. Anything else? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hi there and thank you very much for your review. I have implemented your feedback and left some comments. Let me know if you support this nomination. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

IanTEB (Comments + Source Review)

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

• The image of Dan Balan should have an alt text. For its caption, I would remove the second use of "Moldovan" before naming his group, since (at least I would) assume the band is from the same country as the member.

Added alt text and fixed nationality.

• notably reaching number 44 on the UK singles chart - notably according to whom? I think the word could just be cut

Removed.

• was a top ten hit and was awarded certifications in the majority of music markets - second 'was' could be removed. For 'majority of music markets', do you mean major music markets?

reworded to "and awarded certifications in multiple major music markets" to be more concise

• There are instances of oxford commas missing. If the article is not written in American English, add {{Use British English|date=December 2024}} (or a suitable alternative) to the top of the article to discourage users from changing this.

Added the British English template

• Source [11] (CNN) renders an error for me, but I don't have any issue with the archive. Change the url-status to dead, unless this is a regional issue.

Url is dead, adjusted that

• I believe "Love Me… Love Me…" should be reformatted to "Love Me... Love Me..."

Done

• I can't find the French chart position for "Hey Mamma"

Thank you for pointing this out. It was a peak not on the main chart, but on the downloads chart. Adjusted that.

• In regards to [18] (RIAJ), the drop-down menu only goes back to 2006 for me.

Adjusted.

• For me, the UK Charts says that "Hey Mamma" also charted at 51 on the main chart. It also says "Trenulețul" reached 49 and that "Soarele și luna" reached 66.

The peak you are finding is on the UK Singles Sales Chart, which is not the same as the main UK singles chart. All these songs have also charted on the UK Singles Downloads Chart, which is more notable and hence why it is included in the article.

• [24] (Billboard) gives me a digital songs chart history instead of Bubbling Under 100.

Added instructions on how to retrieve the peak.

• Non-archive link for [29] (RIAA) returns a 404 page. Change the url-status to dead, unless it is a regional issue

This seems to be a regional issue only, since it works for me.

• There are no instructions for how to find the relevant information in [31] (RIAJ)

Adjusted.

• Checked: [3], [4], [5], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [35], [14], [15], [32], [16], [17], [19], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [27], [28], [30], [33], [34],

Pinging Cartoon network freak for follow up in case they moved this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Hi there and many thank for your throrough review, it is really appreciated. Apologies for the late reply; I began working on your comments, but I only now finished them because of the holidays :) I think I have solved everything. Let me know if there is anything more and if you support. Many thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear @Cartoon network freak, this review was performed by @IanTEB. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@IanTEB: Whoops, in this case I thank you :) Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: All issues seems to have been fixed up. Very interesting list. Support for prose and verifiability. IanTEB (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "All My People" (2011) – this would be better suited as "In 2011, "All My People"..."
• and further reached the top 50 in Germany and Spain. – why further?

Replaced with "also"

• What does ◁ mean in the artist section for the tables?

There is a note at the beginning of the "Charted releases section"; the symbol means an artist was not born Moldovan (a non-Moldovan artist is featured on a release by a Moldovan artist)

• Mihail Sandu is available at the Polish Wikipedia at Mihail (piosenkarz), if you're interested.

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kline: Thank you for your comments! I have implemented them and answered in some cases. Let me know if there's anything else and if you support the nomination. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, support! Kline • talk • contribs 20:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042's comments

• "France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain" -> "France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain" History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• "Its parent album DiscO-Zone (2003)" -> "Its parent album, DiscO-Zone (2003)," History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• "France, Germany, Italy and Spain" -> "France, Germany, Italy, and Spain" History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• "Brazil, Canada and the United States" -> "Brazil, Canada, and the United States" History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• "Sasha Lopez, Andreea D and Broono" -> "Sasha Lopez, Andreea D, and Broono" History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: Thank you for your comments. I have implemented everything. Let me know if you support. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [34].

---

1988 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Drive-by comment

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

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

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

@Hey man im josh Pinging again. ^ Arconning (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Arconning: I expect I'll do a full review when the WikiCup is under way. For the time being though, I felt like pointing out what was immediately obvious to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Since the Cup is under way, pinging again. Arconning (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments (ec)

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

  @ChrisTheDude Fixed everything hopefully, sorry for the errors! Arconning (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

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

  @ChrisTheDude Done! Arconning (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

History6042 Comments

• "two competitors who lose their semi-final matches," -> "two competitors who lost their semi-final matches,". The rest of the sentence is in past tense, this should be too. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• "consideration next and then the number of bronze" -> "consideration next, and then the number of bronze". I think there should be a comma there. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• "The medals were then reallocated with Okzen Mirzoyan of the Soviet Union" -> "The medals were then reallocated, with Okzen Mirzoyan of the Soviet Union" I think there should be a comma there as well. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's all I've got. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Donezo. Arconning (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, one more thing "with 55 and 132 respectively." -> "with 55 and 132, respectively.". History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthewrb's Comments

• I'm not sure that the short description is necessary for this article - WP:SDNONE says some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful. I checked a couple of other articles and they have the short description "Award" - so the one in the article is definitely more detailed.
• Is there a reason that {{1988 Summer Olympics}} (The series template) isn't included in the article? Also, the other Olympic FLs have a map
• I argue that the alt text needs to be more descriptive. What's happening in the image? MOS:ALT has some examples.
• For the use of {{main}} for the "Changes due to doping" section, I recommend pointing to the "Doping" section of the 1988 Summer Olympics article ({{main|1988 Summer Olympics#Doping}}) as that will be more informative to the readers. A link to List of stripped Olympic medals is more appropriate for a See Also section.
• I recommend adding a See Also section. For example: 1984 Summer Olympics medal table has one, linking to the overall medal table and the Paralympic games medal table for that year. That would also be the place to put a link to the Olympics Portal: {{portal|Olympics}}
• There is a Commons category (Category:1988 Summer Olympics) - Per MOS:ELLAYOUT, an "External Links" section should be added with {{Commons category}} if there are other external links, or {{Commons category-inline}} if there are none.
• Are there any other external links that might be appropriate for this article? For example: the official IOC page for the 1988 games.
• Side note: I have done a spot check of the medal table - it looks accurate.

That's what I've got. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Matthewrb Done! Other Olympic FLs do have a map though I don't see how that would be necessary as there are some Olympic FLs that don't. The commons category you're referring to is the Games itself not the medal table so it wouldn't be applicable in this sense. Arconning (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning: Sounds good.

I was not encouraging the short description to be "Award" - I was actually encouraging WP:SDNONE for this list. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

Assuming that is fixed, I'll note my Support. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

TheAstorPastor's comments

• tying Mark Spitz's record of the most medals won in a single games → record for most medals won in a single Olympics
• consistent with IOC conventional sorting → consistent with IOC's conventional sorting
• the athletes from a nation have won → won by athletes from each nation
• and women's 50 metre freestyle → and the women's 50 metre freestyle

Image review

• File:Kristin Otto 1986.jpg extracted from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1986-1220-023, Cornelis Sirch, Kathrin Zimmermann, Kristin Otto.jpg (CC-BY-SA 3.0) ; alt text present ; source link present
• Sylvia Poll (cropped) 2.jpg extracted from File:Sylvia Poll.jpg (CC BY 2.0) ; alt text present ; source link isn't working for me atleast (please check it)
• File:Peter-Holmberg.jpg extracted from File:LVPS-2009.jpg (CC BY 2.0) ; alt text present ; source link isn't working for me atleast (please check it)

The AP (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Source review – Reliability and formatting of the citations both look okay across the board, and the link-checker tool didn't detect any issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheAstorPastor The source links are working for me. :) Arconning (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Arconning I would wait for another user to comment about the source link of these 2 images, then I will consider it to be passed. there aren't working for me The AP (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

I had planned to also do a source review, so I'll just do it anyways.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Article has no short description. You should add one that says none: {{Short description|none}}
• Consider adding the {{Use dmy dates|January 2025}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
• A number of references are defaulting to the archived version instead of the live version because of a lack of a the |url-status parameter, please address this.
• Ref 12 – Add author
• Ref 14 – Should be Gannett News Service as the agency, not AP.
• Ref 14 – Add author
• Consider adding 1988 Winter Olympics medal table to the see also section

Other than that I'm happy. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Done! Arconning (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) [35].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Kazakhstan

Nominator(s): Tone 14:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments

• "TThree sites are transnational" - typo
• "Even if the mausoleum remains partially unfinished," => "Although the mausoleum remains partially unfinished,"
• "Silk Road is an ancient network of trade routes" => "The Silk Road is an ancient network of trade routes"
• "started forming in the 2nd century BCE" - earlier you just used "BC"
• "represents different stages of history of Turkic peoples" => "represents different stages of the history of the Turkic peoples"
• "as and later the centre of the Kazakh khans ." - don't think that "as" should be there, also there's a random space before the full stop
• "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints are popular pilgrimage sites" - this doesn't make sense. I think what you mean is "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and are popular pilgrimage sites"
• "The archaeological excavations of the tombs, kurgans, uncovered" => "The archaeological excavations of the tombs, called kurgans, uncovered"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  FIxed all, thanks :) Tone 12:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• You've changed one item but not in the way I was expecting. Can I just check if "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and popular pilgrimage sites" is correct? Currently this wording indicates that some of the mosques are named after saints and some of the mosques are named after pilgrimage sites. I don't think this is what you mean, but maybe I am wrong....? I think what you mean is "The mosques are named after the local Sufi saints and are popular pilgrimage sites" (i.e. all the mosques are named after saints and the mosques are pilgrimage sites) - can you confirm.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, you are correct, added "are". Typo on my side. Tone 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Turan is linked twice in the lead.
• The roads connected societies of Asia, the Subcontinent, – I'm confused, what does "the Subcontinent" mean?
• Near East in that same paragraph could be linked, coming from someone who has no idea what the Near East was before this review.
• Seven sites are listed in Kazakhstan, Aksu Canyon is pictured. – I'm going to presume that the Aksu Canyon is one of those seven sites. Either that comma can be changed into a semicolon or something such as "including the Aksu Canyon which is pictured" can be added.
• from nomadic tribes to First Turkic Khaganate. – should be changed into "the First Turkic Khaganate".
• This nomination comprises five mosques and adjacent necropolises – "mosques" and "necropolises" probably should be linked.
• The mosque of Beket-ata is pictured. – same concern as the Aksu Canyon comment.
• ...the Chinese silk and Iranian carpets This indicates that..." – missing period.

Other than that, good work! Kline • talk • contribs 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! I didn't link mosque since I also don't link church, these are widely-known terms. I rewrote some parts, the Subcontinent refers to India in the source but simply stating India is much clearer. Tone 13:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point on the mosques, I don't know why I didn't think of that. Everything else looks good, support! Kline • talk • contribs 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on version of the article.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) [36].

---

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

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support: It is consistent with the Into the Spider-Verse FL in terms of overall elements, so great work on those! Chompy Ace 11:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Query

• "Shameik Moore (for "Gwen Stacy")" (Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards - Favorite Male Voice from an Animated Movie) - that isn't right surely? Moore didn't voice Stacy according to the lead
• same goes for "Hailee Steinfeld (for "Miles Morales")" for the same awards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's not right; I'd accidentally swapped the two. Fixed now. @ChrisTheDude Sgubaldo (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support, well-written, and I also like how they used actual dates instead of years. dxneo (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - the date of ceremony column is not fully sortable. JP (Talk) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling, done. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on version of the article.

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 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Refs 28 and 89 – Link to Awards Daily instead of AwardsDaily
• Ref 40 – Expand Xinhua to match the target article of Xinhua News Agency, similar to how we would expand "AP" to "Associated Press" in references
• Ref 47 – Source should be The Hollywood Reporter instead of AwardsWatch
• Ref 85 – Change Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America to Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association (this matches the source and the target)
• As Jpeeling mentioned, I also noticed that the sorting for the date of ceremony column is not entirely accurate.

That's all I've got, good stuff. Please ping me when the above has been addressed.

@Hey man im josh: all done. Thanks for the source review. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [37].

---

United States presidential elections in Oklahoma

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

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

Comments from Kavyansh

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

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

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there an appropriate link for "electoral votes" for non-US people who don't necessarily know how the system over there works?
• "The state's electoral votes were reduced to eight votes" => "The state's electoral votes were reduced to eight"
• "Oklahoma initially vacillated between" - can you find a different verb than "vacillated"? It conveys a sense of every resident standing in front of the ballot box quivering and saying "I just can't decide who to vote for" :-)
• "Oklahoma was last considered a swing state during the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton." - and when was that?
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: I addressed all your comments, though in regard to the last one I linked to the election and not the specific campaign. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Staraction

• "Republicans having won every single Oklahoma county since the 2004 presidential election" -> "Republicans have won every county in Oklahoma since the 2004 presidential election" Done
• "Democrats have won without the state eight times, the most recent in Joe Biden's election in 2020" -> "Democrats have won without the state eight times, most recently in Joe Biden's victory in 2020" Done
• Perhaps include Henry D. Irwin, mentioned in the lede, in footnote b? Done
• "The state later passed a law..." -> would it be possible to find out when? That seems like the type of tidbit that would make the news, with a date attached; the source cited even mentions it was 1961. The source also mentions a constitutional amendment - perhaps elaborate on that? Done
• Is there a reason why, under 1920, Eugene Debs' vote percentage is rounded 5.29% from source to 5.3% in the article? fixed
• Dewey did not win nationally in 1948 (later edit, got a little joy out of remembering Dewey Defeats Truman here) Done
• Maybe change "William H. Taft" and "William Taft" -> "William Howard Taft", per WP:COMMONNAME? This is up to you though, since it isn't an article title. Done
• Source 38: "Ok Elections" -> "OK Election Results" Done
• Sources 38 and 39 are not consistent despite being from the same source; additionally please archive source 39
• Please archive sources 1, 2, 12, 13, etc. (probably just use IABot) Done

Thanks for your work, @User:OlifanofmrTennant; please ping me after you review these suggestions, and let me know if you disagree with any of them! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction: done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• "An amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma had been passed earlier in the year..." -> what did the amendment do?
• "Republicans have won every single county in Oklahom\

since the 2004 presidential election." -> I've just gone ahead and fixed this

• Ref 2 has cite error (archive date mismatch)

Thanks for your work, @OlifanofmrTennant; please ping me after you review these suggestions, and let me know if you disagree with any of them! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction: done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

One last thing, @OlifanofmrTennant - per MOS:NOW, what are your thoughts on changing the sentence, "Oklahoma initially fluctuated between voting Democrat and Republican, but it has recently come to be considered a safely red state" (emphasis mine)? Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would be up to it. What do you propose? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, scratch what I said before - you do well in explaining, for example, that Johnson was the last Democrat to win the state; I think I'd just remove "recently". So instead, "Oklahoma initially fluctuated between voting Democrat and Republican,[perhaps a citation here? up to you] but it has come to be considered a safely red state". Gets rid of the problem with defining when "recently" is. But ultimately, this is up to you and a lot less solid than my previous suggestions. Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction: Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• Citation 1 should use {{cite map}} Done
• The work parameter is not appropriate for citations 2, 7, 21, 25–34, and 38–39; they should be replaced with the respective government agencies or publishers, such as the Oklahoma State Election Board. Done
• Citation 13 uses a different date format from the rest of the citations. 'Done
• The live results used for citations 35, 36, and 37 should be replaced with either the official/certified results from the Oklahoma State Election Board or Leip's Atlas for consistency.
• Citation 38 uses the wrong title. Done

Mostly formatting issues that need to be resolved. SounderBruce 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I've done everything but replace the refs. Is there a reason to do so? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: The live results did not account for recounts, cured ballots, and other later counts. For example, the 2008 tally for the New York Times differs from what the state and Leip both report. For the sake of consistency, we should be using the same set of sources for every entry in the table and correcting as needed. SounderBruce 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: swapped Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The new citations need to have dates added. SounderBruce 21:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The new citations have dates added? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass source review based on the FL criteria. SounderBruce 04:31, 6 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [38].

---

List of kerivoulines

Nominator(s): PresN 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

• Under Golden-tipped bat, Australia is spelt incorrectly
• Under Cryptic woolly bat, Sri Lanka is linked but India is not. Is this because India is better known and not required to be linked?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, and yes, that was the idea, but I just went ahead now and linked India as well. --PresN 12:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima comments

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

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

• @Generalissima: Done and done, thanks! --PresN 12:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Support on image and prose review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [39].

---

List of historic places in Carterton District

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

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

Comments

• "The town has emerged as a tourism center" => "The town has emerged as a tourism centre" (Commonwealth English)
• "The first publicly owned hydroelectric power facility in Wairarapa" - in the lead it was the Wairapa.....?
• "stenciled or written on the walls" => "stencilled or written on the walls"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much! Made those fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620

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

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

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

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

@Dylan620: Thank you! I wikilinked plinth. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: No prob! Happy to support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle

• 'ties to the Ngāti Māhu hapū of the Ngāti Kahungunu.' should say tribe or iwi after Ngati Kahungunu.
  • Added. - G

• urupa should have a lang tag.
  • Added. - G

• The reference for Wakelin's flour mill is contemporary with the proposed demolition and does not support the fact the building was saved (but can be easily verified e.g. [40]) unless I missed something in the Heritage NZ report the report does not seem to have been written at a time when demolition was confirmed to not be going ahead 'The NZHPT was contacted, and negotiations with the owners to retain the building are underway.'
  • There's a bit under the Physical Description section under the Detailed List Entry at the bottom, but you're right that source is good to use here.

• This one is personal preference but I think the Carter Home should say men's retirement home, as it was established as such and for most of it's lifetime was exclusive to men.
  • Good idea. - G

• Sayer's Slab Whare should probably say remained and not resided, as he did not choose to live in the area because of his friendship but instead his friendship caused him to remain when his father left the area.
  • Good fix. - G

• A description for the Mayfield Station would be nice although there does seem to be a dearth of digital sources. If you locate anything physical available in Auckland I might be able to take a look at it.
  • I dug quite a bit for that, and just could not find anything, not even things I could ask a friend in NZ to get. Usually when something on HNZ is that loosely covered, its due to some sort of privacy concern. - G

• The Glendower Woolshed should say circa 19th century as the Heritage report states: 'it was most likely built in the nineteenth century'
  • Good fix. - G

• A homestead originally built by John Milsome Jury in 1864. should say circa 1864 per the report. Should also say 1935 instead of 1934, presume that is just a typo.
  • Fixed! -G

• Otherwise everything cited is supported by the references given. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Traumnovelle: thank you very much! Made the fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support one more minor thing: the heritage nz website you cite contains digitised reports which is what most information is obtained from. These are given a date and author which are good to include for attribution and letting the reader know how up to date the information is. I was going to add them myself but I came across partial names (J. Doe) and wasn't sure on citation styles which are important in a FA class article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Crisco (and image review)

• File:Postcard. Public Library and Reading Room, Carterton (1900s) (21449016408).jpg - Are there any more specific tags relevant to this item?
  • Added. - G
• File:Old Carterton Bulk Store - panoramio.jpg has a check categories tag.
  • Fixed. - G
• File:St. Mark’s Anglican Church, Carterton.jpg looks good.
• File:Carterton Public Library.jpg looks good
• A photo of a church with a tall spire in a grassy environment should probably be "photograph" to be more formal
  • Fixed. - G

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

  Essentially italics aren't used by the style guides in NZ for Maori words regardless of if they have any widespread use in English or not. [41] [42] [43]

  So really to italicise or not should fall back on MOS:ITALICS. Both terms are included in the OED: [44] [45] and pa can be written as pah so should be considered loan words. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: Responded - ty very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Happy to support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on version of the article.

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:

• The abbreivation for the ref column should be Ref(s), with the full word as "References" given that some cells have more than 1 ref
• I'm a little confused because of the classification for the Waikēkeno Historic Area. My understanding was historic places were meant to be either Category 1 or Category 2, but this is a third designation which isn't explained in any capacity anywhere in the article

References are good though. Good stuff as always Generalissima. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh There we go - added an explanation for historic areas, good catch. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [46].

---

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1980

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Support by Generalissima

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

Support from HAL

• Support Very clean. ~ HAL333 16:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review (pass)

The sources are reliable and high-quality, particularly for a list about music. The citation structure is consistent and well-done. I have done a spot check, and for the most part, everything from the source matches the citation and what is being cited in the list. I did run across one small issue. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association source (here) no longer supports the cited information as the website has not updated to only show the most recent win. It may change again in the future to show all of the wins and nominations, but it is likely best to just use the archived version (here) as it will stay more consistent. Otherwise, great work as always, and once the small point with the one citation is corrected, I will pass this source review. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - I went for a totally different source in the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense as it is better to use a source specific to the song and its win. Thank you for addressing this point. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

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

I also did a source review, just because I typically like to. The only change that I viewed as necessary was changing "Huffington Post" to "HuffPost" to match the target article. I also ran IABot but no additional archives were added. Great stuff as always Chris. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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